Italiano, Antoine

Abstract Oncogenic translocations involving the MET gene have been reported in several cancer types, but detailed clinicogenomic characterization of these cancers is not well defined. In addition, prospective clinical trials evaluating the antitumor activity of MET inhibitors in MET rearrangement–positive cancers are limited. In this study, in a pan-cancer analysis of >46,000 solid tumors with comprehensive genomic profiling, we identified oncogenic MET rearrangements in ∼0.04% of cancers. Preliminary analysis from a phase II clinical trial of the type I MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) vebreltinib in MET fusion–positive solid tumors demonstrated an objective response rate of 50% and disease control rate of 79%, with antitumor activity seen in diverse cancer types, including lung adenocarcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, among others. Similar to MET exon 14–altered lung cancer, secondary mutations in the kinase domain can confer resistance to MET TKIs in MET fusion–positive cancers. Overall, these data categorize MET rearrangements as actionable targets in solid tumors. Significance: MET rearrangement–positive cancers are not well-characterized, and optimal treatment strategies are yet to be defined. Through comprehensive genomic analysis, preclinical modeling, and preliminary results of a phase II clinical trial, we demonstrate that MET fusions are a unique molecular subtype of cancers targetable with vebreltinib, a TKI in development.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.