Medina, Aldo Adrian Acosta

Introduction Malignant histiocytoses (MH), encompassing histiocytic sarcoma (HS), interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma (IDCS), and Langerhans cell sarcoma (LCS), are a group of rare, hematologic neoplasms with diverse clinical presentations and poor outcomes. There are no established or effective treatments for patients with MH. The discovery of MAPK/ERK pathway mutations in non-malignant histiocytoses have revolutionized the treatment paradigm, but it is unknown whether novel treatments are efficacious for MH. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of targeted agents (TA) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in MH. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of MH patients seen at our two institutions. Only patients treated with TA and/or ICI were included. We captured the mutational status by next generation sequencing and PD-L1 expression level by immunohistochemistry, where available. We also conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed to identify additional cases of MH patients treated with TA and/or ICI. Responses were reported as complete (CR), partial (PR), or none (NR) using previously published criteria for histiocytic disorders. Results From our institutions, we identified 12 MH patients (7 HS; 4 LCS; 1 IDCS) who received 14 instances of these treatments including TA (n=9) and/or ICI (n=5). The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range, 33-70) and 50% were males. TAs included BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib [1]), MEK inhibitors (binimetinib [1], cobimetinib [2], trametinib [2]) and others (dasatinib [1], pazopanib [1], pexidartinib [1]), while ICIs were exclusively pembrolizumab (5). The median number of prior treatments for those who received TAs and ICIs were 4 and 2, respectively. Responses were observed in 44.4% (1 CR, 3 PRs, 5 NR) and 40% (2 CRs, 3 NRs) of patients who received TA and ICI, respectively. Only 1 patient (20%) treated with MEK inhibitor responded [DOCK8-BRAF; PR 5+ mos]. Other responders received dasatinib [PDFGRA-V608I; PR 2 mos], pexidartinib [PTPN11-A72T; PR 5 mos], and vemurafenib [BRAF-V600E; CR 10+ mos]. Two patients (40%) who received pembrolizumab responded (both CRs 12+ [10% PD-L1] and 44+ mos [40% PD-L1]). We identified 29 MH patients in the literature (27 HS; 2 LCS) treated with TAs (22) and/or ICIs (10). TAs included BRAF inhibitor only (vemurafenib [3], dabrafenib [3]), MEK inhibitor only (trametinib [5]), BRAF + MEK inhibitors (2), and others (apatinib, anlotimib, bevacizumab, daratumumab, dasatinib, imatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, or combinations [9]), while ICIs included pembrolizumab (4), nivolumab (4), tislelizumab (1), and sintilimab (1). Responses were observed in 77% (7 CRs, 10 PRs, 5 NRs) and 100% (2 CRs, 8 PRs) of patients who received targeted agents and ICI, respectively. Most patients carrying BRAF (7/8; V600E, G596R, D594G, TRIM::BRAF) or MAP2K1 (3/3; C121S, F53I) mutations responded to treatments, irrespective of the number of mutations present. The median durations of response for ICI and targeted agents were 10.5 months (range: 1-36+) and 12+ months (range: 3-44+), respectively. After combining the datasets from our institutions and literature review, we analyzed the association between the extent of PD-L1 expression and response to ICI. Those who responded to ICI had higher PDL-1 expression (median 75% [range, 10-75] vs 25% [range, 1-30]; P=0.0097). Conclusion TAs and ICIs can be considered in the management of MH. The responses to ICI therapy may be associated with the degree of PDL1 expression

Introduction. Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) and Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD) belong to a group of histiocytic neoplasms often driven by mutations in the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, most commonly in BRAF, MAP2K1 and K/NRAS. Currently, there are 2 drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of histiocytic neoplasms, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, both small molecule kinase inhibitors (SMKI) targeting mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) and BRAF, respectively. BRAF mutations are functionally classified as RAS-independent - either monomers (class I) or dimers (class II) - and RAS-dependent (class III). MAP2K1 mutations are functionally classified as RAF-independent, RAF-regulated, or RAF-dependent. Preclinical studies suggest class I, but not classes II-III, BRAF mutations are sensitive to RAF monomer inhibitors (dabrafenib, encorafenib, vemurafenib) while classes I-II, but not class III, BRAF mutations are sensitive to MEK inhibitors (Yaeger R, Cancer Discovery 2019). In contrast, RAF-regulated MAP2K1 mutants have variable sensitivities to allosteric MEK inhibitors (binimetinib, cobimetinib, selumetinib, trametinib) while RAF-dependent and RAF-independent MAP2K1 mutations are resistant. KRAS mutations are generally resistant to MEK inhibitors (Johnson C, Cancer Discovery 2022). Our study described the clinical efficacy of commercially available SMKIs in patients with histiocytic neoplasms harboring non-BRAFV600E mutations and compared the findings with preclinical data. Methods. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with histiocytic neoplasms who were treated with SMKI at Mayo Clinic. Only those who had adequate genomic testing and non-BRAFV600E mutations were included. Responses were categorized as complete (CR), partial (PR), or none (NR) based on established criteria. Results. We identified 31 non-BRAFV600E patients treated with SMKI (2 LCH; 20 ECD; 9 RDD). The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (range: 16-76) and 52% were females. The distribution of BRAF mutations was: class I (V600delinsRE [1]), class II (V495A [1], V471F [1], N486_P490del [2], GAB2-BRAF [1], UBR2-BRAF [1], RNF11-BRAF [1], UBTD2-BRAF [1]), and class III (G466E [1], D594A [1]). The only patient with class I mutation received cobimetinib and had PR. Among those with BRAF class II mutations, 2 received vemurafenib and had NR, while 9 received MEK inhibitors (binimetinib, cobimetinib, trametinib) and most responded (3 CRs, 5 PRs). The patient who had NR required dose reductions due to side effects. Both patients with class III mutation did not respond to cobimetinib. The median duration of responses was 19 months (range: 3+ to 45+) and 3 patients progressed subsequently. The distribution of MAP2K1 mutations was: RAF-independent (E102_103del [2]), RAF-regulated (I103N [1], K57T [1], Q56P [3], F53L [1], K57N [1]) and RAF-dependent (Y130C [1], D67N [1]). Both patients with RAF-independent mutations treated with cobimetinib had PRs. All patients with RAF-regulated mutations treated with allosteric MEK inhibitors responded (3 CRs, 5 PRs). Both patients with RAF-dependent mutations treated with cobimetinib responded (1 CR, 1 PR). The median duration of responses was 15 months (2 to 29+) with 3 patients progressing after treatment cessation due to intolerance. The distribution of RAS mutations was: NRAS (Q16R [1]) and KRAS (K117N [3], A146T [1], T581 [1], G13C [1], G12D [1]). Most patients treated with allosteric MEK inhibitors responded (3 CR, 4 PR, 1 NR). The median duration of response was 15 months (5 to 41) and 2 patients subsequently progressed, one of them after treatment cessation. Conclusions. Among patients with histiocytic neoplasms with non-BRAFV600E mutations receiving SMKI, our study found mixed patterns of concordance between pre-clinical predictions and clinical responses. There was concordance of efficacy in the setting of BRAF classes I-III and MAP2K1 RAF-regulated mutations. However, we found discordant findings in patients harboring RAF-dependent and RAF-independent MAP2K1 mutations as well as KRAS mutations as most responded to allosteric MEK inhibitors.

Introduction The discovery of MAPK/ERK pathway mutations has revolutionized the care for patients with histiocytic neoplasms. However, mutational analysis on biopsy specimens is often limited by low tumor cellularity leading to testing failure or disease involvement of difficult-to-reach sites (e.g., central nervous system). Recently, molecular analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has shown promise as a viable tool for discovering driver mutations in multiple cancers. A recent study of mainly BRAF-mutated non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) showed 50% concordance between tumor and plasma cfDNA analysis for BRAF-V600E. However, it is unknown whether cfDNA has a role in the evaluation of cases that harbor mutations beyond BRAF-V600E. We conducted this study to address this unanswered question using a large cohort of individuals with diverse histiocytic neoplasms from a tertiary-care institution. Methods We included 40 cases with histiocytic neoplasms with stored plasma and germline DNA in this study. Tissue molecular analysis was conducted using a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) using commercial assays or whole exome sequencing (WES) using an in-house assay. A custom panel of 226 genes, including exonic and intronic regions, was used for the cfDNA assay in this study. To avoid cfDNA false positives, germline mutations identified from normal DNA sequencing were filtered using a BostonGene ®-developed error reduction algorithm.The total length of the analyzed genomic regions was 1.56 MB. For samples with an input greater than 30 ng, a 0.2% variant allele frequency (VAF) limit of detection (LOD) was used; a 0.4% VAF LOD was used for samples less than 30 ng. Results The final analysis cohort included 38 patients with histiocytic neoplasms after exclusion of 2 cases (failure of germline DNA library preparation and mismatch of germline and somatic DNA, respectively). Disease types included Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD; n=13, 34%), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH; n=13, 34%), and Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD; n=12, 32%). 24 cases were multisystem (63%), and the remaining were single-system. Commonly involved organs included bone (n=25, 66%), kidney (n=12, 32%), skin (n=8, 21%), central nervous system (n=7, 18%), and pituitary (n=7, 18%). Most cases (n=31, 82%) underwent plasma collection pre-treatment, 5 cases underwent collection after histiocytosis-directed therapy, and 2 while on treatment. Tissue NGS/WES data were available for 28 (74%) cases; 5 cases (13%) had insufficient tissue cellularity, and 5 (13%) did not undergo any tissue sequencing. Among those who underwent successful tissue sequencing assays, the most common common driver alterations was BRAF V600E (n=5, 26%). Other alterations included those in MAP2K1 (n=4, 21%), BRAF-fusions (n=3, 10%; partners UBDT2, RNF11, and LMTK2, respectively), and single cases of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF indel, respectively. cfDNA analysis showed at least one variant in 23 cases (60%). Correlation between tissue and cfDNA for known driver mutations was poor and concordant findings were only seen in one case with ECD harboring BRAF V600E in tissue as well as plasma (VAF 0.5%). Among the 5 cases where tissue mutational analysis had failed, cfDNA showed mutations in MUTYH, PTCH2, NOTCH3 SDHD, and TMEM127, respectively (Figure 1). Among the 5 cases where tissue molecular assessment could not be undertaken due to various reasons, cfDNA showed alterations in 4 cases, encompassing NOTCH1, TET2, BRCA1, MSH6, PIK3CD, and FUS genes. Conclusions In a large cohort of adults with diverse histiocytic neoplasms, we found poor correlation between tumor and plasma cfDNA molecular findings. The reason for the lack of correlation may be related to low tumor shedding especially among non- BRAF V600E cases. cfDNA analysis may have a role to identify potential drivers of pathogenesis among cases that are unable to successfully undergo tissue molecular analysis. Further studies are underway to characterize other novel alterations that were discovered in the cfDNA analysis.

Purpose: The discovery of MAPK/ERK pathway mutations has led to the approval of MEK-inhibitor (MEKi) cobimetinib in histiocytic neoplasms. However, the pivotal clinical trial that led to the approval of cobimetinib included only 4 patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). Therefore, there is a need to define outcomes with MEKi therapy in patients with LCH. We undertook a multi-center collaboration through the Adult LCH Working Group for the Histiocyte Society to address this gap in knowledge. Methods: Adults with LCH who received MEKi therapy were included from five institutions. Objective response rate (ORR) was evaluated using PET/CT criteria, and CT/MRI if PET scan was not available; response categories were categorized into complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of targeted therapy initiation. Risk organ disease was defined as liver, spleen, or bone marrow involvement. Results: 25 adults with LCH were included in this study; median age at MEKi initiation 43y (range, 18-85). Most common systems involved at diagnosis were bone (52%), pituitary (44%), and lung (36%). Risk organ involvement was observed in 7 (28%, 6 liver, 1 liver and spleen) and 2 (8%) patients had intra-axial CNS involvement. Median lines of prior therapy received were 2 (range: 1-5), and 4 (16%) patients received MEKi in first-line. MAPK/ERK pathway status was assessed via target capture next generation sequencing (NGS) in 22 (96%) cases. Amongst those who underwent NGS, alterations identified included: BRAF V600E (2/22, 9%), BRAF deletions (11/22 50%), MAP2K1 or MEK mutations (4/22, 18%), and MAPK1 or ERK2 (n=1, 5%). Overall, 5 patients also received BRAF inhibitors (4 patients as first therapy prior to MEKi and 1 concomitantly due to BRAF V600E positive melanoma). Specific MEKi agents utilized included cobimetinib (n=13) and trametinib (n=12). Among the response evaluable patients (n=23), ORR to MEKi treatment was 78% (9 CR, 9 PR, 4 SD, 1 PD). Among the 7 patients with liver involvement, responses were seen in 2 (29%) cases. ORR did not significantly differ according to mutation status among those with NGS data (78% MAPK mutated vs. 100% unmutated; p=1.0). In this subcohort, all of the 4 cases that did not respond to MEKi had liver involvement; 3 had BRAF deletions (2 SD and 1 PD), and one had MAPK1 mutation (SD). Median follow-up duration after MEKi initiation in the entire cohort was 18 months (95% CI 6 - 30). The median PFS and OS were not reached; 2-year PFS and OS were 78.1% and 79.9%, respectively (Figure 1A). The median PFS was much shorter in those with liver involvement (7 months [95% CI 0 - 14]) compared with those without liver disease (not reached [95% CI 19-not reached] P=0.047; Figure 1B). PFS did not differ significantly between MAPK pathway mutated and unmutated patients (p=0.34) Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 36% (n=9) and most commonly included rash (n=5) and fatigue (n=3). Four patients experienced grade 3-4 AEs including rash, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia. Common causes of MEKi discontinuation included AEs (n=3), progression (n=2), and drug holiday (n=2). At last follow-up, 5 patients died and 18 remained on MEKi. Death was attributable to LCH (n=3), concomitant malignancy (n=1), or unknown causes (n=1). Conclusions: In our multi-institutional study of adults with LCH, we found MEKi therapy to be highly efficacious. However, liver involvement correlated with a lack of response and worse PFS, while mutational status did not. Future studies are needed to evaluate optimum treatment for high-risk subgroups of LCH like liver disease.