No effective systemic treatment exists for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs). These tumors have been reported to show increased activity in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway from the loss of neurofibromatosis-1 regulation and occasionally from BRAF V600E mutation. A patient with sporadic metastatic MPNST and the BRAF V600E mutation was treated with standard doses of sorafenib and later vemurafenib and followed for response. The patient showed a rapid but modest and transient response to sorafenib and a very dramatic response to vemurafenib. This case represents the first report of successful systemic treatment of MPNST with an inhibitor of the BRAF V600E mutation. It will be important to define the general utility of this approach and related therapies in this disease.
Vemurafenib Treatment of BRAF V600E-Mutated Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor
Henry G. Kaplan
Genomic Profiling in Patients With Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors Reveals Multiple Pathways With Targetable Mutations
Henry G. Kaplan, Steven Rostad, Jeffrey S. Ross, Siraj M. Ali, and Sherri Z. Millis
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of alterations in BRAF and other RAS/RAF genes, as well as other targetable pathways in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs). Patients and Methods: Pathology specimens were available for 2 cohorts: (1) patients with MPNST at Swedish Cancer Institute (n=17) from 2004 through 2016, and (2) patients with MPNST evaluated for >300 genomic alterations at Foundation Medicine from 2014 through 2016 (n=186; including 2 Swedish patients with BRAF-mutated MPNST). Results: Of 201 MPNSTs, 13 (6.5%) demonstrated BRAF alterations. In the Foundation Medicine cohort, 10 of 84 tumors (11.9%) with no NF1 alterations had BRAF mutations (5 were V600E, 5 other), as did 3 of 102 (2.9%) tumors with NF1 alterations (1 V600E, 2 other). In the Foundation Medicine cohort, 47% of patients had an alteration in at least one other gene in the RAS/RAF pathway (not including NF1 or BRAF); 46% had alterations in the PI3 pathway, with 70% having alterations in at least 1 of the 2 pathways; 57% had a CDKN2A alteration (80% in BRAF-mutated and 71% in NF1-altered patients); and 70% had an alteration in DNA repair genes. MPNST, both NF1 wild-type and NF1-mutated, often harbor alterations in the RAS/RAF pathway as well as changes related to DNA repair and CDKN2A/B. V600E and other mutations occur in BRAF, suggesting the need for second-generation activating BRAF inhibitors. The concurrence of BRAF and/or NF1 alterations with CDKN2A/B mutations, in particular, may be significant in the transformation of neurologic tumors from benign to malignant. Conclusions: All MPNSTs would benefit from a comprehensive genomic analysis. Treatments targeted to RAS/RAF, DNA repair, and CDKN2A/B pathways should be used and/or developed to treat this uncommon tumor.
Response of Leptomeningeal Metastasis of Breast Cancer With a HER2/neu Activating Variant to Tucatinib: A Case Report
Fengting Yan, Kristine J. Rinn, Jonathon A. Kullnat, Aimee Y. Wu, Maura D. Ennett, Elizabeth L. Scott, and Henry G. Kaplan
Metastatic breast cancer demonstrates HER2/neu amplification approximately 15% of the time. However, HER2 mutations, which often stimulate tumor growth, occur in only 3% to 5% of patients, and are seen more frequently in metastatic versus primary tumors. They are more frequent in lobular carcinoma, including triple-negative lobular cancer. Many of these variants are resistant to trastuzumab and lapatinib. However, neratinib can be efficacious, and recent data suggest that antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) such as ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and trastuzumab deruxtecan may also be helpful. Laboratory and clinical data raise the possibility that simultaneous treatment with ADCs plus neratinib may be even more efficacious. Tucatinib, which has demonstrated significant activity in the central nervous system, has also been shown in vitro to be active against a number of these HER2 variants. This report describes a patient with metastatic estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-nonamplified breast cancer with an activating HER2 mutation whose tumor became resistant to neratinib as well as capecitabine, but whose subsequent leptomeningeal disease had a dramatically successful response to tucatinib plus capecitabine. As the frequency of HER2 mutations increases during the evolution of metastatic breast cancer, it is important to obtain genomic evaluation on these tumors with either repeat tissue or liquid biopsy as they progress over time.
Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Sensitive to Pembrolizumab: Evidence of the Pathogenicity of the MLH1 Variant 1835del3
Henry G. Kaplan, Jeffrey R. Whiteaker, Brianna Nelson, Richard G. Ivey, Travis D. Lorentzen, Uliana Voytovich, Lei Zhao, David J. Corwin, Robert Resta, and Amanda G. Paulovich
A woman with estrogen/progesterone receptor–positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer developed progressive disease despite treatment with multiple hormonal and chemotherapeutic modalities. She carried a germline variant of MLH1 (1835del3), also known as c.1835_1837del and v612del, the pathogenicity of which has not been conclusively determined. MLH1 staining was not seen on immunohistochemical staining of her tumor tissue. The patient experienced a >5-year dramatic response to 4 doses of pembrolizumab. Family studies revealed multiple other relatives with the MLH1 1835del3 variant, as well as multiple relatives with colon cancer. The one relative with colon cancer who underwent genetic testing demonstrated the same variant. Laboratory studies revealed that the patient’s tumor showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in the MLH1 region, high levels of microsatellite instability, and a high tumor mutational burden. LOH in the MLH1 region, along with the remarkable clinical response to pembrolizumab treatment and the presence of the same MLH1 variant in affected relatives, supports the hypothesis that the MLH1 1835del3 variant is pathogenic. Given the patient’s family history, this likely represents an uncommon presentation of Lynch syndrome. Physicians should be alert to evaluate patients for targetable genetic variants even in unlikely clinical situations such as the one described here.