Back to Authors

Hunsberger, Sally

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-5622

Mayo Clinic

National Institutes of Health

Citations 2

Pilot Trial of Selecting Molecularly Guided Therapy for Patients with Non–V600 BRAF-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma: Experience of the SU2C/MRA Melanoma Dream Team
LoRusso, Patricia , Boerner, Scott A. , Forman, Karen, Zuccaro, Clarice Y., Kiefer, Jeffrey , Liang, Winnie S. , Hunsberger, Sally , Redman, Bruce G., Sekulić, Aleksandar , Bryce, Alan H. , Joseph, Richard W. , Cowey, C. Lance , Fecher, Leslie A. , Sosman, Jeffrey A. , Chapman, Paul B. , Craig, David W. , Carpten, John D. , Trent, Jeffrey M. , Pilat, Mary Jo , Markovic, Svetomir N. , Schwartz, Gary K. , Bryce, Alan H

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics | June 11, 2015 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1962-1971

10.1158/1535-7163.mct-15-0153 Get It

Abstract Targeted therapies and immunotherapies have led to significant improvements in the treatment of advanced cancers, including metastatic melanoma. However, new strategies are desperately needed to overcome therapeutic resistance to these agents, as well as to identify effective treatment approaches for cancer patients that fall outside major targetable mutational subtypes (e.g., non–V600 BRAF melanoma). One such strategy is to extend the paradigm of individually tailored, molecularly targeted therapy into a broader spectrum of melanoma patients, particularly those bearing tumors without commonly recognized therapeutic targets, as well as having failed or were ineligible for immunotherapy. In this nontreatment pilot study, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies were utilized, including whole genome and whole transcriptome sequencing, to identify molecular aberrations in patients with non–V600 BRAF metastatic melanoma. This information was then rationally matched to an appropriate clinical treatment from a defined pharmacopeia. Five patients with advanced non–V600 BRAF metastatic melanoma were enrolled. We demonstrated successful performance of the following during a clinically relevant time period: patient tumor biopsy, quality DNA/RNA extraction, DNA/RNA-based sequencing for gene expression analysis, analysis utilizing a series of data integration methodologies, report generation, and tumor board review with formulated treatment plan. Streamlining measures were conducted based on the experiences of enrolling, collecting specimens, and analyzing the molecular signatures of patients. We demonstrated the feasibility of using NGS to identify molecular aberrations and generate an individualized treatment plan in this patient population. A randomized treatment study utilizing lessons learned from the conduct of this pilot study is currently underway. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(8); 1962–71. ©2015 AACR.
Developing Safety Criteria for Introducing New Agents into Neoadjuvant Trials
Berry, Donald A. , Zujewski, JoAnne, Hunsberger, Sally , Rubinstein, Larry , Tomaszewski, Joseph E. , Kelloff, Gary, Perlmutter, Jane , Buxton, Meredith , Lyandres, Julia, Albain, Kathy S. , Benz, Chris, Chien, A. Jo , Haluska, Paul , Leyland‐Jones, Brian , Liu, Minetta C. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Park, John W., Parker, Barbara A. , Yee, Douglas , DeMichele, Angela , Zujewski, Jo Anne , Münster, Pamela N. , Pusztai, Lajos , Tripathy, Debu , Rugo, Hope S. , Esserman, Laura J. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Yee, Douglas , Rubinstein, Larry V

Clinical Cancer Research | March 8, 2013 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 2817-2823

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2620 Get It

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.