Mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a protein kinase regulating cell growth, survival, metabolism, and immunity. mTOR is usually assembled into several complexes such as mTOR complex 1/2 (mTORC1/2). In cooperation with raptor, rictor, LST8, and mSin1, key components in mTORC1 or mTORC2, mTOR catalyzes the phosphorylation of multiple targets such as ribosomal protein S6 kinase β-1 (S6K1), eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), Akt, protein kinase C (PKC), and type-I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-IR), thereby regulating protein synthesis, nutrients metabolism, growth factor signaling, cell growth, and migration. Activation of mTOR promotes tumor growth and metastasis. Many mTOR inhibitors have been developed to treat cancer. While some of the mTOR inhibitors have been approved to treat human cancer, more mTOR inhibitors are being evaluated in clinical trials. Here, we update recent advances in exploring mTOR signaling and the development of mTOR inhibitors for cancer therapy. In addition, we discuss the mechanisms underlying the resistance to mTOR inhibitors in cancer cells.

/pdf/targeting-mtor-for-cancer-therapy-21n99gutyp.pdf

Targeting mTOR for cancer therapy

The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling cascade is among the most frequently mutated pathways in human cancer. Approximately 50% of melanoma patients possess a druggable hotspot V600E/K mutation in the BRAF protein kinase. FDA-approved combination therapies of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are available that provide survival benefits to patients with a BRAF V600 mutation. Non-V600 BRAF mutants are found in many cancers, and are more prevalent than V600 mutations in certain tumor types. For example, between 50-80% of BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer and 22-30% in colorectal cancer encode for non-V600 mutants. As next generation sequencing becomes increasingly used in clinical practice, oncologists are frequently identifying non-V600 BRAF mutations in their patient's tumors, but are uncertain of viable therapeutic options that could be employed for optimal treatment. From recent studies, a new classification system is emerging for BRAF mutations based on biochemical and signaling mechanisms associated with these mutants. Class I BRAF mutations affect amino acid V600 and signal as RAS-independent active monomers, class II mutations function as RAS-independent activated dimers, and class III mutations are kinase impaired but increase signaling through the MAPK pathway due to enhanced RAS binding and subsequent CRAF activation. These distinct classes of BRAF mutations predict response to targeted therapies and have important implications for future drug development. Herein, we discuss pre-clinical and clinical findings that may lead to improved treatments for all classes of BRAF mutant cancers.

Classifying BRAF alterations in cancer: new rational therapeutic strategies for actionable mutations.

Genomic, Pathway Network, and Immunologic Features Distinguishing Squamous Carcinomas

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a technique for quantifying circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) which is a somatic mutation with high sensitivity from a cancer patient's living body sample, and to provide diagnosis, prognosis diagnosis, a therapeutic agent, and a technique for monitoring of cancer based on it.SOLUTION: In a test sample of blood or stool of a cancer patient, the copy number of DNA fragments by a gene mutation is measured, and if the mutation is present in tumor tissue of the cancer patients but not in normal tissue of the patient, the copy number is an index of the tumor burden in the patient.SELECTED DRAWING: None

Circulating mutant dna to assess tumor dynamics

There is accumulating evidence for potential benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the treatment of cancer with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Relationships between exposure and response (efficacy/toxicity) have been established for several TKIs. For example, the pharmacokinetic targets for efficacy of imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib have been defined as trough plasma concentrations (Ctrough) of >1,000, >50 and >20,000 ng/mL for selected indications, respectively. Dose adjustment based on pharmacokinetic targets could therefore increase response rates and duration. Furthermore, with appropriate target concentrations defined, excessive side effects in patients using the current fixed dosing strategy may be prevented. This review provides a practical guideline for TDM for the currently approved TKIs at 28 February 2013. The focus of this article is on the elaboration of exposure and response relationships of TKIs with proposed pharmacokinetic targets, mainly Ctrough, and further on the interpretation of the pharmacokinetic targets with recommendations for dose titrations.

Practical guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors: focus on the pharmacokinetic targets.

Introduction This Phase Ib trial investigated the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose for the pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, GSK2126458 (GSK458), and trametinib combination when administered to patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received escalating doses of GSK458 (once or twice daily, and continuous or intermittent) and trametinib following a zone-based 3 + 3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Assessments included monitoring for adverse events and response, and evaluating pharmacokinetic (PK) measures. Archival tissue and circulating free DNA samples were collected to assess biomarkers of response in the PI3K and RAS pathways. Results 57 patients were enrolled onto the continuous dosing cohort and 12 patients onto an intermittent BID dosing cohort. Two MTDs were established for the continuous daily dosing: 2 mg of GSK458 with 1.0 mg of trametinib or 1.0 mg of GSK458 with 1.5 mg of trametinib; no MTD was determined in the intermittent dosing cohort. The most frequent adverse events were rash (74 %) and diarrhea (61 %). Dose interruptions due to adverse events occurred in 42 % of patients. No significant PK interaction was observed. One patient achieved partial response and 12 patients had stable disease >16 weeks. Mutations in RAS/RAF/PI3K were detected in 70 % of patients, but no pattern emerged between response and mutational status. Conclusion GSK458 plus trametinib is poorly tolerated, due to skin and GI-related toxicities. Responses were minimal, despite enrichment for PI3K/RAS pathway driven tumors, which may be due to overlapping toxicities precluding sufficient dose exposure.

A phase Ib dose-escalation study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 in patients with advanced solid tumors

Aim To quantify the effect of food on the systemic exposure of lapatinib at steady state when administered 1 h before and after meals, and to observe the safety and tolerability of lapatinib under these conditions in patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods This was a three-treatment, randomised, three-sequence cross-over study. Lapatinib was administered 1 h after a low- [B] or a high-fat [C] meal and systemic exposure was compared with that obtained following administration 1 h before a low-fat meal [A]. Results In total, 25 patients were included, of whom 12 were evaluable for the pharmacokinetic analysis. Both low-fat and high-fat meals affected lapatinib exposure. Lapatinib AUC0–24 increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.80-fold (90 % CI: 1.37–2.37) and after a high-fat meal by 2.61-fold (90 % CI: 1.98–3.43). Lapatinib Cmax increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.90-fold (90 % CI: 1.49–2.43) and after a high-fat meal by 2.66-fold (90 % CI: 2.08–3.41). The most commonly occurring treatment-related toxicity was diarrhoea (8/25, 32 % CTCAE grade 1 and 2/25, 8 % grade 2) and one treatment-related grade ≥ 3 event occurred (fatigue grade 3, 4 %). Conclusions Both low-fat and high-fat food consumed 1 h before lapatinib administration increased lapatinib systemic exposure compared with lapatinib administration 1 h before a low-fat meal. In order to administer lapatinib in a fasted state, it is advised to administer the drug 1 h before a meal.

Effects of low-fat and high-fat meals on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lapatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

The aqueous solubility of lapatinib declines significantly at pH >4, suggesting that its bioavailability might be lowered by acid-reducing drugs. A study was therefore conducted to assess the effects of esomeprazole on lapatinib pharmacokinetics (PK). Women with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2(+) ) breast cancer were enrolled. Patients received 1,250 mg lapatinib once daily (QD) in the morning on Days 1-7 (Period 1) and Days 8-14 (Period 2) with 40 mg esomeprazole QD at bedtime 3 hours after dinner on Days 8-14. Lapatinib PK sampling occurred during the 24-hour steady-state dosing intervals on Day 7 (lapatinib alone) and Day 14 (lapatinib with esomeprazole). Esomeprazole treatment resulted in decreased lapatinib bioavailability (mean 26%, range 6-49%) that was inversely associated with patient age as a significant covariate.

Leanne Cartee

Papers

A phase Ib dose-escalation study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 in patients with advanced solid tumors

Effects of low-fat and high-fat meals on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lapatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

Effects of Esomeprazole on the Pharmacokinetics of Lapatinib in Breast Cancer Patients.