In three years, four drugs have gained regulatory approval for the treatment of metastatic and unresectable melanoma, with at least seven other drugs having recently completed, currently in, or soon to be in phase III clinical testing. This amazing achievement has been made following a remarkable increase of knowledge in molecular biology and immunology that led to the identification of high-valued therapeutic targets and the clinical development of agents that effectively engage and inhibit these targets. The discovery of either effective molecularly targeted therapies or immunotherapies would have led to dramatic improvements to the standard-of-care treatment of melanoma. However, through parallel efforts that have showcased the efficacy of small-molecule BRAF and MAP–ERK kinase (MEK) inhibitors, as well as the immune checkpoint inhibitors, namely ipilimumab and the anti-PD1/PDL1 antibodies (lambrolizumab, nivolumab, MPDL3280), an opportunity exists to transform the treatment of melanoma specifically and cancer generally by exploring rational combinations of molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and molecular targeted therapies with immunotherapies. This overview presents the historical context to this therapeutic revolution, reviews the benefits and limitations of current therapies, and provides a look ahead at where the field is headed. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5283–91. ©2013 AACR.

Melanoma is a deadly disease that is rising in incidence. In 2013, an estimated 76,000 new cases and 9,400 deaths are expected in the United States (1). Still, despite these stark numbers, there is great optimism in the melanoma research and treatment communities due to a number of breakthroughs that are transforming the way this disease is being treated. To highlight the dramatic progress being made to treat patients with melanoma, it is very possible that for the second time in 3 years, the number of therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced melanoma will double in a 12-month period (Fig. 1). These advances have been the result of extraordinary scientific discovery combined with robust clinical and translational efforts. What follows is an overview of the past, current, and near future states of melanoma therapeutics and an introduction to the topics covered in this Clinical Cancer Research Focus section.

Figure 1.

FDA-approval timeline for metastatic melanoma. Dacarbazine (1976) and high-dose IL-2 (1998) were the only approved agents between 1976 and 2011. In 2011, both vemurafenib and ipilimumab were approved, thereby doubling the number of approved agents. In 2013, dabrafenib and trametinib were approved, and based on the emerging data with nivolumab and lambrolizumab, regulatory approval is expected in the near future, thereby setting up the possibility that the number of approved agents will double again within a 12- to 18-month time period.

Figure 1.

FDA-approval timeline for metastatic melanoma. Dacarbazine (1976) and high-dose IL-2 (1998) were the only approved agents between 1976 and 2011. In 2011, both vemurafenib and ipilimumab were approved, thereby doubling the number of approved agents. In 2013, dabrafenib and trametinib were approved, and based on the emerging data with nivolumab and lambrolizumab, regulatory approval is expected in the near future, thereby setting up the possibility that the number of approved agents will double again within a 12- to 18-month time period.

Close modal

Melanoma has long been considered a malignancy that has a complex and unique interaction with the immune system. The first description of immune infiltrates in primary tumors was made decades ago, as was the definition of the prognostic significance of these infiltrates (2, 3). Further interactions between the immune system and melanoma have been posited as the explanation of two fascinating phenomena: (i) the long latency from primary melanoma resection of early-stage disease to the development of widespread metastases and (ii) the spontaneous regression of metastatic melanoma in a small number of patients (4, 5). Because of these findings and beliefs, immunotherapy has a long history in the treatment of melanoma starting with injections of immune stimulants (i.e., Bacillus Calmette-Guérin), moving to treatment with mediators of immune responses (i.e., cytokines) with or without “educated” immune effectors such as primed T lymphocytes (adoptive cell transfer), and more recently, monoclonal antibodies that target critical immune checkpoints and thereby lead to T-lymphocyte (T-cell) activation (6–11).

Cytokine therapy

In the early days of tumor immunology, it was evident that T-cell activation, in particular cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) activation, was required (12). Although the understanding of how T cells become active has evolved over the past four decades, one of the first major discoveries was that a number of substances were produced and secreted by immune cells and could interact with receptors on other immune cells as well as tumor cells (13–15). The substances known as cytokines were initially grouped as one of two types, type 1 associated with CTL activation (so-called cellular immunity) and type 2, associated with antibody formation (so-called humoral immunity; ref. 16). Interestingly, these two types of cytokines were typically antagonistic, such that type 1 cytokines would inhibit humoral immunity and type 2 cytokines would inhibit cellular immunity. Not surprisingly, a number of type 1 cytokines were tested as antineoplastic therapies for melanoma, among other malignancies; only IFN-α-2B (IFN2B) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) showed sufficient benefit to support regulatory approval for melanoma (17).

High-dose IFN2B is approved for the adjuvant treatment of patients with intermediate-to high-risk melanoma (defined as American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB, IIC, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC) based on data that showed an improvement in relapse/disease-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS; ref. 18). Since this initial report, a number of studies have been conducted with high-dose IFN2B showing a consistent improvement in RFS, yet not necessarily in OS (19). Similar data have been seen with pegylated IFN2B, an agent that received FDA approval in 2011 (20). Although the data with IFN2B led to its FDA approval as an adjuvant therapy for patients with intermediate-and high-risk melanoma, given its toxicity profile and underwhelming efficacy, its use in this setting is more by default due to a lack of more promising options than an endorsement of its effectiveness.

High-dose IL-2 is a highly toxic therapy that leads to a capillary leak syndrome associated with hypotension/shock, massive fluid retention, and renal failure necessitating that it be given in an inpatient, intensive-care level setting (8, 21). Its use is associated with a 16% to 23% response rate, with 5% to 10% of patients treated achieving a durable response that can last for decades (8, 22). Given the high toxicity and low response rate, IL-2 is only given in a small number of centers, although the potential for decades-long response is compelling and the reason why this therapy is still considered for highly selected and motivated patients.

Adoptive immunotherapy

Another therapy associated with long-term remissions is adoptive T-cell therapy (23). This involves the harvesting of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) from metastatic tumors, ex vivo expansion, and administration with IL-2 following nonablating lymphodepleting chemotherapy (24). In a small series of patients, this has resulted in complete remissions in up to 40% of cases, even when other immunotherapies have failed (24, 25). This approach remains investigational but is being explored at an increasing number of centers. In addition, further manipulations or genetic modifications of TILs (new culture conditions, altered cytokine secretion) and coadministration with other immune cells (i.e., natural killers cells or dendritic cells) and/or vaccines are being explored (26–30). Alternatively, tumor reactive T cells for clinical administration are also being engineered from peripheral blood by the introduction of receptors specific for tumor-associated antigens. And, most recently, the potential for molecularly targeted therapy to augment tumor infiltrates and enhance effector T-cell function following administration is being explored (reviewed by Kwong and colleagues in this issue; ref. 31).

Immune checkpoint inhibition

Over the past three decades, the complexities of immune activation, and T-lymphocyte activation specifically, have been elucidated. Although cytokines play an important role in directing immune effectors, the process of T-cell activation requires two major signals: (i) T-cell receptor (TCR) recognition of antigen in the context of MHC expressed on a professional antigen-presenting cell (APC) and (ii) costimulation in the form of TCR interactions between the T cell and the APC (32–34). This second step of costimulation involves a number of so-called “checkpoints” that regulate whether this process occurs or not (35). The two checkpoints that have garnered the most attention to date are the CTL antigen 4 (CTLA4) and the program death 1 (PD1) molecule.

CTLA4 is a surface protein on T cells that interacts with the APC membrane-bound costimulatory molecules, B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86), and functionally competes with the T-cell costimulatory molecule CD28 (35, 36). After its identification as a potent, negative regulator of T-cell activation, it became an attractive target for monoclonal antibody therapy (37). Ipilimumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits CTLA4 function, thereby releasing a critical brake to T-cell costimulation (10). The preclinical discoveries of CTLA4 and its role in T-cell costimulatory regulation and subsequent clinical development of ipilimumab offer an amazing example of translational research, as ipilimumab was the first agent to be proven to prolong OS in patients with metastatic melanoma and the first agent since IL-2 to achieve FDA approval for this treatment indication (10, 38). Clinical activity of ipilimumab has also been associated with the induction of serious immune-mediated adverse events, most prominently colitis, implying a broad role for CTLA4 in suppressing autoimmunity. Notably, an agonist CD28 antibody proved to induce a life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and highlights the delicate balance of immune cell activation/inactivation that must be respected in designing safe and effective immune checkpoint–targeted therapies (39).

A second example of the increased knowledge of immune checkpoint biology leading to clinical improvement is the development of antagonists of PD1 and one of its ligands, PDL1. Following chronic T-cell activation, the inhibitory receptor PD1 is induced on T cells, and expression of one of its ligands, PDL1, on tissue-based macrophages and tumor cells can offer protection from immune destruction (40). As a result, targeting either PD1 or PDL1 offers an opportunity to disable a major mechanism of tumor-mediated immune evasion. The clinical development of monoclonal antibodies that inhibit either PD1 or PDL1 is under way and the results of early-stage clinical trials of the PD1 antibodies, nivolumab and lambrolizumab, as well as the PDL1 antagonists, MDX-1107 and MPDL1-3280, are impressive. Tumor responses (at least 50% appearing to be durable) are seen in a sizable minority of patients, whereas toxicity seems to be less prominent as compared with ipilimumab (11, 41–44). It is not an understatement to say that these agents are the most promising treatments for melanoma that have ever been developed given the high clinical benefit rate, reasonable tolerability, and potential for being added to other standard and experimental agents. This is reviewed in greater detail by Ott and colleagues in their article on immunotherapy in this CCR Focus section (45).

In parallel to the amazing developments in the field of immunotherapy, there has been a remarkable advancement in the understanding of the molecular biology of tumor cells. Perhaps the most profound discovery, as it relates to the field of targeted therapy development, is the identification that tumors generally, and melanoma specifically, co-opt and then become dependent upon a small number of signal transduction pathways to stimulate cell-cycle progression and angiogenesis, prevent apoptosis, and abrogate host defense responses. In melanoma, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways are the two major pathways that mediate growth and survival signals (Fig. 2; refs. 46, 47). The role of the PI3K pathway is reviewed in detail by Kwong and Davies in this CCR Focus section (48).

Figure 2.

Molecular and immunologic signaling in melanoma. Melanoma cells use a diverse set of cell surface receptors and intracellular signaling molecules to promote growth, cell-cycle progression, cell survival, angiogenesis, and immune evasion. HIF-1α, hypoxia-inducible factor-1α; IGF-1R, insulin-like growth factor receptor.

Figure 2.

Molecular and immunologic signaling in melanoma. Melanoma cells use a diverse set of cell surface receptors and intracellular signaling molecules to promote growth, cell-cycle progression, cell survival, angiogenesis, and immune evasion. HIF-1α, hypoxia-inducible factor-1α; IGF-1R, insulin-like growth factor receptor.

Close modal

Molecular classification of melanoma

The MAPK pathway is almost always overexpressed in melanoma and is constitutively activated through genetic aberrations, most commonly via specific point mutations, in the great majority of the cases (Fig. 3). The most common of these genetic aberrations is mutation at the 600 position of BRAF (V600), present in 40% to 50% of melanomas (49, 50). Mutations of the N-isoform of RAS are found in another 15% to 25% of cases and tend to occur at either position 12 or 61 (51). NRAS and BRAF mutations are mutually exclusive (the co-occurrence rate is <<1%), lead to hyperactivation of the MAPK pathway, and are associated with a worse prognosis than are melanomas with wild-type NRAS and BRAF (52, 53). A loss-of-function mutation in the tumor suppressor gene, neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1), was recently identified in approximately 10% to 15% of cases and also is associated with abnormal MAPK signaling (54). When mutated, NF1 is no longer capable of keeping RAS in its inactive RAS-GDP form and thus leads to constitutive activation of RAS and the pathways downstream (55). Genetic mutations or amplifications are seen in other genes leading to upregulation of the MAPK pathway as well. These include cKIT mutations, seen in less than 1% of all melanomas, although in upwards of 10% to 30% of acral or mucosal melanomas, and mutations in small G-protein subunits called GNAQ and GNA11 that are present in more than 80% of ocular melanomas, though rarely seen in other melanoma subtypes (56–58).

Figure 3.

Oncogenic mutations in melanoma. Oncogenic mutations and molecular aberrations are regularly present in the MAPK pathway in melanoma and include, in order of frequency, BRAF, NRAS, PTEN loss, NF1 loss, CKIT mutation or amplification, and GNAQ/GNA11 (<1% of all melanoma, >80% of ocular melanoma).

Figure 3.

Oncogenic mutations in melanoma. Oncogenic mutations and molecular aberrations are regularly present in the MAPK pathway in melanoma and include, in order of frequency, BRAF, NRAS, PTEN loss, NF1 loss, CKIT mutation or amplification, and GNAQ/GNA11 (<1% of all melanoma, >80% of ocular melanoma).

Close modal

In addition to the oncogenic mutations that lead to hyperactivation of the MAPK pathway (BRAF, NRAS, CKIT, NF1, and GNAQ/GAQ11), a number of other genes may be altered in melanoma and serve to complement the primary oncogenic mutations described above. In particular, abnormalities of genes involved in cell-cycle regulation, including cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK), CDK inhibitors [such as P16Ink4a (CDKN2A)], and cyclin D are seen in more than 70% of the patients (reviewed in detail by Sheppard and McArthur in this CCR Focus section; refs. 59, 60). Also, the function of the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, PTEN, is either lost or impaired in up to 30% of cases (61, 62). This is most commonly seen in a subset of patients with BRAF mutations, thereby allowing for unregulated signaling of both the MAPK pathway, via BRAF mutation, and the PI3K pathway, through PTEN loss of function (52, 63).

MAPK inhibition and resistance

With the first description of oncogenic BRAF mutations in melanoma, efforts were made to identify and develop clinical inhibitors of both BRAF specifically and the MAPK pathway in general. The initial targeted therapy studies in melanoma were with agents that are now considered nonspecific inhibitors of BRAF, sorafenib and RAF265, and lower potency inhibitors of MAP–ERK kinase (MEK)-1/2, such as selumetinib, PD-325901, and CI-1040 (64–72). It is important to note that these studies were open to any patient with melanoma independent of mutational status. Thus, these trials were doomed for failure as the agents were not able to inhibit the MAPK pathway sufficiently at tolerable doses, and the patients treated were not preselected to include only those most likely to benefit. Mechanisms of resistance to these agents were impossible to determine given the fact that the pathway was suboptimally inhibited and thus few patients received benefit.

BRAF-directed therapy in BRAF mutants.

The first so-called targeted therapy to show substantial efficacy in melanoma was vemurafenib (73). In the initial phase I study, it was determined early that only patients with oncogenic (i.e, V600) mutations experienced clinical benefit and that almost every one of these patients had some evidence of tumor regression with treatment. Furthermore, responses occurred early with improvement of symptoms within days and near complete 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) responses within 2 weeks from the onset of therapy. A subsequent phase II study confirmed the remarkable response dynamics and frequency of vemurafenib, and a phase III study confirmed that vemurafenib conferred a survival advantage compared with chemotherapy (50, 74). A second, potent, and specific mutant BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib, has been associated with very similar clinical efficacy as vemurafenib and joined it as the second BRAF inhibitor to achieve FDA approval (75). A third such BRAF inhibitor, LGX818, has shown responses at every dose level tested (76).

Although the advantages of BRAF inhibitor therapy are the rapid onset and high frequency of responses, the disadvantage is the limited duration of clinical benefit (74, 75). Specifically, BRAF inhibitor treatment is associated with a progression-free survival (PFS) of only 5 to 7 months as a result of the development of cellular resistance over this relatively short period of time. The mechanisms of this resistance can be subdivided into those that can be predicted on the basis of pretreatment analysis of tumors and those that clearly were not identified at baseline but rather developed as a result of selective pressure placed upon the tumor cells by BRAF inhibitor treatment.

A number of identifiable pretreatment factors have been described as being associated with either a poorer response and/or a shorter PFS to BRAF inhibitor treatment. These include stromal hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) production, BCL2A1 [an antiapoptotic B-cell leukemia 2 (BCL-2) family member] expression, activation of cyclin D1, and loss of PTEN (77–81). It is interesting that each of these examples is associated with critical regulation of growth, survival, or cell-cycle regulation: the activation of the PI3K pathway (stromal HGF production leads to CMET activation of the pathway; PTEN loss leads to dysregulation of the pathway), resistance to apoptosis (BCL2A1), or cell-cycle progression (cyclin D1; Fig. 2).

Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors, defined here as the development of cellular resistance by a mechanism not identified in pretreatment tumors, is associated with reactivation of the MAPK pathway approximately two thirds of the time (82). One of the first described mechanisms of resistance (MOR) to BRAF inhibitors was the upregulation of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) such as insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 (IGF-R1), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), as well as HER3 that can signal through PI3K or the MAPK pathway by activating the C-isoform of RAF (83–86). Although BRAF inhibitors potently inhibit BRAFV600, a mutant isoform that signals through a constitutively active kinase in a monomeric form, they paradoxically facilitate RAF dimerization, thereby leading to activation of the MAPK pathway (87, 88). This so-called “BRAF inhibitor paradox” explains how RTK activation upstream of RAF can reactivate the MAPK pathway through CRAF homo- or heterodimerization and how other MORs to BRAF inhibitor therapy activate the pathway. For example, concomitant mutation of NRAS and BRAF is seen in more than 20% of the resistance samples driving MAPK signaling, and an alternative splice variant of BRAFV600E that can dimerize in the context of BRAF mutation emerges in 20% to 25% of the resistance samples; loss of NF1 leading to NRAS activation has also been described (86, 89, 90). In addition, other MORs that do not rely on paradoxical activation also are seen and include increased expression of BRAFV600, downstream oncogenic mutation of MEK, and alternative MAPK activation (COT) leading to activation of MEK (refs. 91–94; MORs are summarized in Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Mechanisms of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors: 1, RTK activation that can signal either through CRAF (1A) or the PI3K pathway (1B); 2, concomitant NRAS mutation; 3, emergence of a truncated BRAFV600E variant from alternative splicing; 4, concomitant MEK mutation; 5, BRAFV600 overexpression; 6, loss of NF1; 7, COT, an alternative MAPK activation. ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; FGFR3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 3.

Figure 4.

Mechanisms of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors: 1, RTK activation that can signal either through CRAF (1A) or the PI3K pathway (1B); 2, concomitant NRAS mutation; 3, emergence of a truncated BRAFV600E variant from alternative splicing; 4, concomitant MEK mutation; 5, BRAFV600 overexpression; 6, loss of NF1; 7, COT, an alternative MAPK activation. ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; FGFR3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 3.

Close modal

MEK-directed therapy.

The clinical development of more selective MEK1/2 inhibitors, such as trametinib and MEK162, has led to the proof of principle that MEK is a legitimate target in melanoma, both in BRAF-mutant melanoma and, to a lesser degree, in BRAF wild-type melanoma (harboring NRAS or NF1 mutations; refs. 95, 96). In fact, trametinib has recently been FDA approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma based on a randomized phase III study showing that treatment with tremetinib is associated with a survival advantage compared with conventional chemotherapy [response rate (RR) 22%, PFS 4.8 months, 6-month OS 81% for trametinib vs. RR 8%, PFS 1.5 months, 6-month OS 67% for chemo; ref. 96). MEK162 has also shown clinical efficacy in both BRAF- and NRAS-mutant melanoma in a phase II study (BRAF mutants: RR 20%, PFS 3.6 months; NRAS mutants: RR 20%, PFS 3.7 months; ref. 97). A phase III study is under way to explore whether MEK162 is more effective than chemotherapy in NRAS-mutant melanoma (NCT01763164). Finally, selumetinib was shown to have modest efficacy in patients with uveal melanoma. In a randomized, phase II study, treatment with selumetinib was associated with a two-fold improvement in PFS compared with patients who received chemotherapy, though notably, OS was not different in the two treatment groups (98). On the basis of the results of all of these studies, it seems clear that MEK inhibition is associated with modest benefit (20% RR, PFS 4–5 months) in subsets of patients with melanoma and will have a role as a single agent in the treatment of this disease. The MORs of single-agent MEK inhibitor therapy have not been well elucidated.

The future of targeted therapy in melanoma

It is important to acknowledge that targeted therapy in melanoma remains in its infancy. Only 4 years have passed since initial clinical data with vemurafenib were presented. During this time, the collective knowledge about both mechanisms of action and resistance of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy has grown nearly exponentially. As these data have emerged, so too have clinical trial ideas using BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy as the backbone to combinatorial regimens that have been rationally designed from our scientific understanding of how these agents change tumor cells.

The first example of this second wave of trials focusing on combination regimens is a phase I/II combination of dabrafenib and trametinib (99). It was predicted that reactivation of the MAPK pathway would occur in the setting of BRAF inhibitors (82). Therefore, inhibition of the pathway downstream of BRAF by targeting either MEK or extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) was considered as an approach that might lead to further clinical benefit, and perhaps more remarkably, improvement in severity of toxicity. Interestingly, the sequential administration of a BRAF inhibitor followed by a MEK inhibitor is ineffective and exposes patients to the potential toxicities seen with each single agent, yet concurrent treatment with both agents is associated with an improvement in RR, response depth (i.e., greater maximal response), response duration, and PFS, and a reduction in toxicity severity (99, 100). This peculiar safety signal is based on the fact that BRAF inhibitors paradoxically activate the MAPK pathway through facilitation of RAF dimerization (87, 88). As discussed above, many MORs to BRAF inhibitors emerge as a result of this phenomenon, however, the toxicity of BRAF inhibitors is also likely explained by this. Namely, BRAF inhibitor toxicity is likely a result of upregulation of the MAPK in nonmelanoma cells; the best-described example is the development of squamous cell carcinomas of the skin secondary to RAS mutations in skin cells (101). This phenomenon is seen at a much lower frequency with the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma with MEK inhibitors (99). Therefore, in BRAF-mutant cells, BRAF and MEK inhibitors both inhibit the pathway leading to augmented inhibition but exert differential effects on the MAPK pathway in non-BRAF–mutant cells such as squamous cells of the skin, leading to an attenuation of toxicity. There are now two additional phase I combinations of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors showing similar improvements in efficacy and abrogation of toxicity severity (102, 103). Phase III studies of each of these combinations are under way (NCT01689519; NCT01597908; NCT01584648) or being planned. It is expected that over the coming 5 years, triple and quadruple drug regimens will be studied in the clinic to treat BRAF-mutant melanoma with the BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination at the core.

In NRAS-mutant melanoma, it is anticipated that two events will occur in the near future that will hopefully lead to the dramatic improvement in how these patients are treated. First, a phase III study of MEK162 (NCT01763164) has been launched to determine the efficacy of this agent compared with chemotherapy. If successful, regulatory approval would be expected. Second, a number of combination regimens are expected on the basis of preclinical data showing that a number of agents may augment MEK inhibitor toxicity in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma (104, 105). Two examples are the combination of a MEK inhibitor with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (NCT01781572) and a combination of a MEK inhibitor with an HDM2 antagonist, though many more doublet and triplet combinations are expected in the near future.

Grand unification: the intersection of MAPK inhibition and immunotherapy

When ipilimumab and vemurafenib were approved by the FDA within months of each other in 2011, a great deal of advocacy was directed toward the makers of each drug to support a combination trial. It turns out that there is actually a compelling rationale to combine BRAF inhibitors with immunotherapies that goes beyond the fact that they are both effective in patients with melanoma. In particular, emerging evidence suggests that oncogenic BRAF is immunosuppressive (106, 107). Furthermore, treatment with MAPK inhibitors is associated with enhanced expression of melanocytic antigens, antigen recognition by T cells, and an influx of CTLs (108–112). These findings offer compelling evidence for the development of combined targeted and immune therapies, although based on the early attempts at combining BRAF inhibitors with checkpoint inhibitors, clinical trials may not be so simple. As an example, the phase I trial of vemurafenib plus ipilimumab was closed because of toxicity concerns, namely a high rate of severe hepatic toxicity (113). Still, a number of trials have opened exploring various BRAF-directed therapies (single agent, BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor combinations, etc.) with checkpoint inhibitors and cytokines alike. The great hope is that the ideal combination will be identified that will be associated with a very high rate of durable clinical response and no untoward toxicity.

From the bleakness of the recent past to the great promise of the near future, the development of melanoma therapeutics has always relied on a strong connection with hard-core molecular biology and immunology laboratories to drive the clinical progress. This is more important than ever as critical issues remain about the ideal sequences and combinations of the various agents that have proven preclinical and clinical efficacy.

K.T. Flaherty is a consultant/advisory board member of GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, and Novartis. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: R.J. Sullivan, K.T. Flaherty

Development of methodology: R.J. Sullivan

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): R.J. Sullivan

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): R.J. Sullivan

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: R.J. Sullivan, P.M. LoRusso, K.T. Flaherty

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): R.J. Sullivan

Study supervision: P.M. LoRusso

1.
Siegel
R
,
Naishadham
D
,
Jemal
A
. 
Cancer statistics, 2013
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2013
;
63
:
11
30
.
2.
Clemente
CG
,
Mihm
MC
 Jr
,
Bufalino
R
,
Zurrida
S
,
Collini
P
,
Cascinelli
N
. 
Prognostic value of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in the vertical growth phase of primary cutaneous melanoma
.
Cancer
1996
;
77
:
1303
10
.
3.
Morton
D
,
Eilber
FR
,
Malmgren
RA
,
Wood
WC
. 
Immunological factors which influence response to immunotherapy in malignant melanoma
.
Surgery
1970
;
68
:
158
63
.
4.
Tsao
H
,
Cosimi
AB
,
Sober
AJ
. 
Ultra-late recurrence (15 years or longer) of cutaneous melanoma
.
Cancer
1997
;
79
:
2361
70
.
5.
Baker
HW
. 
Spontaneous regression of malignant melanoma
.
Am Surg
1964
;
30
:
825
9
.
6.
Morton
DL
,
Eilber
FR
,
Holmes
EC
,
Hunt
JS
,
Ketcham
AS
,
Silverstein
MJ
, et al
BCG immunotherapy of malignant melanoma: summary of a seven-year experience
.
Ann Surg
1974
;
180
:
635
43
.
7.
Kirkwood
JM
,
Ernstoff
MS
. 
Interferons in the treatment of human cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
1984
;
2
:
336
52
.
8.
Atkins
MB
,
Lotze
MT
,
Dutcher
JP
,
Fisher
RI
,
Weiss
G
,
Margolin
K
, et al
High-dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993
.
J Clin Oncol
1999
;
17
:
2105
16
.
9.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Mule
JJ
. 
Immunotherapy of cancer with lymphokine-activated killer cells and recombinant interleukin-2
.
Surgery
1985
;
98
:
437
44
.
10.
Hodi
FS
,
O'Day
SJ
,
McDermott
DF
,
Weber
RW
,
Sosman
JA
,
Haanen
JB
, et al
Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
363
:
711
23
.
11.
Topalian
SL
,
Hodi
FS
,
Brahmer
JR
,
Gettinger
SN
,
Smith
DC
,
McDermott
DF
, et al
Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
2443
54
.
12.
Freedman
LR
,
Cerottini
JC
,
Brunner
KT
. 
In vivo studies of the role of cytotoxic T cells in tumor allograft immunity
.
J Immunol
1972
;
109
:
1371
8
.
13.
Grossberg
SE
. 
The interferons and their inducers: molecular and therapeutic considerations. 3
.
N Engl J Med
1972
;
287
:
122
8
.
14.
Grossberg
SE
. 
The interferons and their inducers: molecular and therapeutic considerations. 2
.
N Engl J Med
1972
;
287
:
79
85
.
15.
Grossberg
SE
. 
The interferons and their inducers: molecular and therapeutic considerations. 1
.
N Engl J Med
1972
;
287
:
13
9
.
16.
Stevens
TL
,
Bossie
A
,
Sanders
VM
,
Fernandez-Botran
R
,
Coffman
RL
,
Mosmann
TR
, et al
Regulation of antibody isotype secretion by subsets of antigen-specific helper T cells
.
Nature
1988
;
334
:
255
8
.
17.
Sullivan
RJ
,
Atkins
MB
. 
Cytokine therapy in melanoma
.
J Cutan Pathol
2010
;
37
Suppl 1
:
60
7
.
18.
Kirkwood
JM
,
Strawderman
MH
,
Ernstoff
MS
,
Smith
TJ
,
Borden
EC
,
Blum
RH
. 
Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial EST 1684
.
J Clin Oncol
1996
;
14
:
7
17
.
19.
Kirkwood
JM
,
Manola
J
,
Ibrahim
J
,
Sondak
V
,
Ernstoff
MS
,
Rao
U
. 
A pooled analysis of eastern cooperative oncology group and intergroup trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon for melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
1670
7
.
20.
Eggermont
AM
,
Suciu
S
,
Santinami
M
,
Testori
A
,
Kruit
WH
,
Marsden
J
, et al
Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation alone in resected stage III melanoma: final results of EORTC 18991, a randomised phase III trial
.
Lancet
2008
;
372
:
117
26
.
21.
Atkins
MB
,
Kunkel
L
,
Sznol
M
,
Rosenberg
SA
. 
High-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma: long-term survival update
.
Cancer J Sci Am
2000
;
6
Suppl 1
:
S11
4
.
22.
Joseph
RW
,
Sullivan
RJ
,
Harrell
R
,
Stemke-Hale
K
,
Panka
D
,
Manoukian
G
, et al
Correlation of NRAS mutations with clinical response to high-dose IL-2 in patients with advanced melanoma
.
J Immunother
2012
;
35
:
66
72
.
23.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
RM
,
Kammula
US
,
Hughes
MS
,
Phan
GQ
, et al
Durable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using T-cell transfer immunotherapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
4550
7
.
24.
Wu
R
,
Forget
MA
,
Chacon
J
,
Bernatchez
C
,
Haymaker
C
,
Chen
JQ
, et al
Adoptive T-cell therapy using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for metastatic melanoma: current status and future outlook
.
Cancer J
2012
;
18
:
160
75
.
25.
Dudley
ME
,
Wunderlich
JR
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
RM
,
Topalian
SL
,
Restifo
NP
, et al
Adoptive cell transfer therapy following non-myeloablative but lymphodepleting chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
2346
57
.
26.
Dudley
ME
,
Gross
CA
,
Langhan
MM
,
Garcia
MR
,
Sherry
RM
,
Yang
JC
, et al
CD8 +enriched “young” tumor infiltrating lymphocytes can mediate regression of metastatic melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
6122
31
.
27.
Johnson
LA
,
Morgan
RA
,
Dudley
ME
,
Cassard
L
,
Yang
JC
,
Hughes
MS
, et al
Gene therapy with human and mouse T-cell receptors mediates cancer regression and targets normal tissues expressing cognate antigen
.
Blood
2009
;
114
:
535
46
.
28.
Zhang
L
,
Kerkar
SP
,
Yu
Z
,
Zheng
Z
,
Yang
S
,
Restifo
NP
, et al
Improving adoptive T cell therapy by targeting and controlling IL-12 expression to the tumor environment
.
Mol Ther
2011
;
19
:
751
9
.
29.
Parkhurst
MR
,
Riley
JP
,
Dudley
ME
,
Rosenberg
SA
. 
Adoptive transfer of autologous natural killer cells leads to high levels of circulating natural killer cells but does not mediate tumor regression
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
6287
97
.
30.
Yu
J
,
Tian
R
,
Xiu
B
,
Yan
J
,
Jia
R
,
Zhang
L
, et al
Antitumor activity of T cells generated from lymph nodes draining the SEA-expressing murine B16 melanoma and secondarily activated with dendritic cells
.
Int J Biol Sci
2009
;
5
:
135
46
.
31.
Kwong
MM
,
Neyns
B
,
Yang
JC
. 
Adoptive T-cell transfer therapy and oncogene targeted therapy for melanoma: the search for synergy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5292
9
.
32.
Sondel
PM
,
Bach
FH
. 
Recognitive specificity of human cytotoxic T lymphocytes. I. Antigen-specific inhibition of human cell-mediated lympholysis
.
J Exp Med
1975
;
142
:
1339
48
.
33.
Azuma
M
,
Cayabyab
M
,
Buck
D
,
Phillips
JH
,
Lanier
LL
. 
CD28 interaction with B7 costimulates primary allogeneic proliferative responses and cytotoxicity mediated by small, resting T lymphocytes
.
J Exp Med
1992
;
175
:
353
60
.
34.
Vonderheide
RH
,
Glennie
MJ
. 
Agonistic CD40 antibodies and cancer therapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
1035
43
.
35.
Melero
I
,
Grimaldi
AM
,
Perez-Gracia
JL
,
Ascierto
PA
. 
Clinical development of immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies and opportunities for combination
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
997
1008
.
36.
Brunet
JF
,
Denizot
F
,
Luciani
MF
,
Roux-Dosseto
M
,
Suzan
M
,
Mattei
MG
, et al
A new member of the immunoglobulin superfamily–CTLA-4
.
Nature
1987
;
328
:
267
70
.
37.
Walunas
TL
,
Lenschow
DJ
,
Bakker
CY
,
Linsley
PS
,
Freeman
GJ
,
Green
JM
, et al
CTLA-4 can function as a negative regulator of T cell activation
.
Immunity
1994
;
1
:
405
13
.
38.
Robert
C
,
Thomas
L
,
Bondarenko
I
,
O'Day
S
,
M
DJ
,
Garbe
C
, et al
Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2011
;
364
:
2517
26
.
39.
Suntharalingam
G
,
Perry
MR
,
Ward
S
,
Brett
SJ
,
Castello-Cortes
A
,
Brunner
MD
, et al
Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412
.
N Engl J Med
2006
;
355
:
1018
28
.
40.
Pardoll
DM
. 
The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2012
;
12
:
252
64
.
41.
Brahmer
JR
,
Tykodi
SS
,
Chow
LQ
,
Hwu
WJ
,
Topalian
SL
,
Hwu
P
, et al
Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
2455
65
.
42.
Hamid
O
,
Robert
C
,
Daud
A
,
Hodi
FS
,
Hwu
WJ
,
Kefford
R
, et al
Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (Anti-PD-1) in melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2013
;
369
:
134
44
.
43.
Hamid
O
,
Sosman
J
,
Lawrence
D
,
Sullivan
RJ
,
Ibrahim
N
,
Kluger
H
, et al
Clinical activity, safety, and biomarkers of MPDL3280A, an engineered PD-L1 antibody in patients with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma (mM)
.
J Clin Oncol
31
, 
2013
(
suppl; abstr 9010
).
44.
Wolchok
JD
,
Kluger
H
,
Callahan
MK
,
Postow
MA
,
Rizvi
NA
,
Lesokhin
AM
, et al
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2013
;
369
:
122
33
.
45.
Ott
PA
,
Hodi
FS
,
Robert
C
. 
CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: new immunotherapeutic modalities with durable clinical benefit in melanoma patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5300
9
.
46.
Sullivan
RJ
,
Flaherty
K
. 
MAP kinase signaling and inhibition in melanoma
.
Oncogene
2012
;
32
:
2373
9
.
47.
Davies
MA
. 
The role of the PI3K-AKT pathway in melanoma
.
Cancer J
2012
;
18
:
142
7
.
48.
Kwong
LN
,
Davies
MA
. 
Navigating the therapeutic complexity of PI3K pathway inhibition in melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5310
9
.
49.
Davies
H
,
Bignell
GR
,
Cox
C
,
Stephens
P
,
Edkins
S
,
Clegg
S
, et al
Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer
.
Nature
2002
;
417
:
949
54
.
50.
Sosman
JA
,
Kim
KB
,
Schuchter
L
,
Gonzalez
R
,
Pavlick
AC
,
Weber
JS
, et al
Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
707
14
.
51.
Omholt
K
,
Platz
A
,
Kanter
L
,
Ringborg
U
,
Hansson
J
. 
NRAS and BRAF mutations arise early during melanoma pathogenesis and are preserved throughout tumor progression
.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
6483
8
.
52.
Tsao
H
,
Goel
V
,
Wu
H
,
Yang
G
,
Haluska
FG
. 
Genetic interaction between NRAS and BRAF mutations and PTEN/MMAC1 inactivation in melanoma
.
J Invest Dermatol
2004
;
122
:
337
41
.
53.
Jakob
JA
,
Bassett
RL
 Jr
,
Ng
CS
,
Curry
JL
,
Joseph
RW
,
Alvarado
GC
, et al
NRAS mutation status is an independent prognostic factor in metastatic melanoma
.
Cancer
2011
;
118
:
4014
23
.
54.
Maertens
O
,
Johnson
B
,
Hollstein
P
,
Frederick
DT
,
Cooper
ZA
,
Messiaen
L
, et al
Elucidating distinct roles for NF1 in melanomagenesis
.
Cancer Discov
2013
;
3
:
338
49
.
55.
Gibney
GT
,
Smalley
KS
. 
An unholy alliance: cooperation between BRAF and NF1 in melanoma development and BRAF inhibitor resistance
.
Cancer Discov
2013
;
3
:
260
3
.
56.
Curtin
JA
,
Busam
K
,
Pinkel
D
,
Bastian
BC
. 
Somatic activation of KIT in distinct subtypes of melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
4340
6
.
57.
Van Raamsdonk
CD
,
Bezrookove
V
,
Green
G
,
Bauer
J
,
Gaugler
L
,
O'Brien
JM
, et al
Frequent somatic mutations of GNAQ in uveal melanoma and blue naevi
.
Nature
2009
;
457
:
599
602
.
58.
Van Raamsdonk
CD
,
Griewank
KG
,
Crosby
MB
,
Garrido
MC
,
Vemula
S
,
Wiesner
T
, et al
Mutations in GNA11 in uveal melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
363
:
2191
9
.
59.
McArthur
GA
,
Young
RJ
,
Sheppard
KE
,
Mar
V
,
Waldeck
K
,
Fox
SB
, et al
Clinical significance of genomic alterations of the CDK4-pathway and sensitivity to the CDK4 inhibitor PD 0332991 in melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
30
, 
2012
(
Suppl; abstr 8520
).
60.
Sheppard
KE
,
McArthur
GA
. 
The cell-cycle regulator CDK4 an emerging therapeutic target in melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5320
8
.
61.
Teng
DH
,
Hu
R
,
Lin
H
,
Davis
T
,
Iliev
D
,
Frye
C
, et al
MMAC1/PTEN mutations in primary tumor specimens and tumor cell lines
.
Cancer Res
1997
;
57
:
5221
5
.
62.
Tsao
H
,
Zhang
X
,
Benoit
E
,
Haluska
FG
. 
Identification of PTEN/MMAC1 alterations in uncultured melanomas and melanoma cell lines
.
Oncogene
1998
;
16
:
3397
402
.
63.
Tsao
H
,
Zhang
X
,
Fowlkes
K
,
Haluska
FG
. 
Relative reciprocity of NRAS and PTEN/MMAC1 alterations in cutaneous melanoma cell lines
.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
1800
4
.
64.
Hauschild
A
,
Agarwala
SS
,
Trefzer
U
,
Hogg
D
,
Robert
C
,
Hersey
P
, et al
Results of a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of sorafenib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as second-line treatment in patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
2823
30
.
65.
Flaherty
KT
,
Lee
SJ
,
Zhao
F
,
Schuchter
LM
,
Flaherty
L
,
Kefford
R
, et al
Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without sorafenib in metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
373
9
.
66.
Adjei
AA
,
Cohen
RB
,
Franklin
W
,
Morris
C
,
Wilson
D
,
Molina
JR
, et al
Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
2139
46
.
67.
Banerji
U
,
Camidge
DR
,
Verheul
HM
,
Agarwal
R
,
Sarker
D
,
Kaye
SB
, et al
The first-in-human study of the hydrogen sulfate (Hyd-sulfate) capsule of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886): a phase I open-label multicenter trial in patients with advanced cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
1613
23
.
68.
Delord
J
,
Houede
N
,
Awada
A
,
Taamma
A
,
Faivre
SJ
,
Besse-Hammer
T
, et al
First-in-human phase I safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) analysis of the oral MEK-inhibitor AS703026 (two regimens [R]) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors
.
J Clin Oncol
28
:
15s
, 
2010
(
suppl; abstr 2504
).
69.
Lorusso
PM
,
Adjei
AA
,
Varterasian
M
,
Gadgeel
S
,
Reid
J
,
Mitchell
DY
, et al
Phase I and pharmacodynamic study of the oral MEK inhibitor CI-1040 in patients with advanced malignancies
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
5281
93
.
70.
Boasberg
PD
,
Redfern
CH
,
Daniels
GA
,
Bodkin
D
,
Garrett
CR
,
Ricart
AD
. 
Pilot study of PD-0325901 in previously treated patients with advanced melanoma, breast cancer, and colon cancer
.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
2011
;
68
:
547
52
.
71.
LoRusso
PM
,
Krishnamurthi
SS
,
Rinehart
JJ
,
Nabell
LM
,
Malburg
L
,
Chapman
PB
, et al
Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral MAPK/ERK kinase inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with advanced cancers
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
1924
37
.
72.
Sharfman
WH
,
Hodi
FS
,
Lawrence
DP
,
Flaherty
KT
,
Amaravadi
RK
,
Kim
KB
, et al
Results from the first-in-human (FIH) phase I study of the oral RAF inhibitor RAF265 administered daily to patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
29
: 
2011
(
suppl; abstr 8508
).
73.
Flaherty
KT
,
Puzanov
I
,
Kim
KB
,
Ribas
A
,
McArthur
GA
,
Sosman
JA
, et al
Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
363
:
809
19
.
74.
Chapman
PB
,
Hauschild
A
,
Robert
C
,
Haanen
JB
,
Ascierto
P
,
Larkin
J
, et al
Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation
.
N Engl J Med
2011
;
364
:
2507
16
.
75.
Hauschild
A
,
Grob
JJ
,
Demidov
LV
,
Jouary
T
,
Gutzmer
R
,
Millward
M
, et al
Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2012
;
380
:
358
65
.
76.
Dummer
R
,
Robert
C
,
Nyakas
M
,
McArthur
GA
,
Kudchadkar
RR
,
Gomez-Roca
C
, et al
editors. 
Initial results from a phase I, open-label, dose escalation study of the oral BRAF inhibitor LGX818 in patients with BRAF V600 mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
31
, 
2013
(
suppl; abstr 9028
).
77.
Haq
R
,
Yokoyama
S
,
Hawryluk
EB
,
Jonsson
GB
,
Frederick
DT
,
McHenry
K
, et al
BCL2A1 is a lineage-specific antiapoptotic melanoma oncogene that confers resistance to BRAF inhibition
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2013
;
110
:
4321
6
.
78.
Nathanson
KL
,
Martin
A
,
Letrero
R
,
D'Andrea
KP
,
O'Day
S
,
Infante
JR
, et al
Tumor genetic analyses of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with the BRAF inhibitor GSK2118436 (GSK436)
.
J Clin Oncol
29
: 
2011
(
suppl; abstr 8501
).
79.
Smalley
KS
,
Lioni
M
,
Dalla Palma
M
,
Xiao
M
,
Desai
B
,
Egyhazi
S
, et al
Increased cyclin D1 expression can mediate BRAF inhibitor resistance in BRAF V600E-mutated melanomas
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2008
;
7
:
2876
83
.
80.
Straussman
R
,
Morikawa
T
,
Shee
K
,
Barzily-Rokni
M
,
Qian
ZR
,
Du
J
, et al
Tumour micro-environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion
.
Nature
2012
;
487
:
500
4
.
81.
Wilson
TR
,
Fridlyand
J
,
Yan
Y
,
Penuel
E
,
Burton
L
,
Chan
E
, et al
Widespread potential for growth-factor-driven resistance to anticancer kinase inhibitors
.
Nature
2012
;
487
:
505
9
.
82.
Bollag
G
,
Hirth
P
,
Tsai
J
,
Zhang
J
,
Ibrahim
PN
,
Cho
H
, et al
Clinical efficacy of a RAF inhibitor needs broad target blockade in BRAF-mutant melanoma
.
Nature
2010
;
467
:
596
9
.
83.
Montagut
C
,
Dalmases
A
,
Bellosillo
B
,
Crespo
M
,
Pairet
S
,
Iglesias
M
, et al
Identification of a mutation in the extracellular domain of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor conferring cetuximab resistance in colorectal cancer
.
Nat Med
2012
;
18
:
221
3
.
84.
Montagut
C
,
Sharma
SV
,
Shioda
T
,
McDermott
U
,
Ulman
M
,
Ulkus
LE
, et al
Elevated CRAF as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibition in melanoma
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
4853
61
.
85.
Villanueva
J
,
Vultur
A
,
Lee
JT
,
Somasundaram
R
,
Fukunaga-Kalabis
M
,
Cipolla
AK
, et al
Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors mediated by a RAF kinase switch in melanoma can be overcome by cotargeting MEK and IGF-1R/PI3K
.
Cancer Cell
2010
;
18
:
683
95
.
86.
Nazarian
R
,
Shi
H
,
Wang
Q
,
Kong
X
,
Koya
RC
,
Lee
H
, et al
Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation
.
Nature
2010
;
468
:
973
7
.
87.
Heidorn
SJ
,
Milagre
C
,
Whittaker
S
,
Nourry
A
,
Niculescu-Duvas
I
,
Dhomen
N
, et al
Kinase-dead BRAF and oncogenic RAS cooperate to drive tumor progression through CRAF
.
Cell
2010
;
140
:
209
21
.
88.
Poulikakos
PI
,
Zhang
C
,
Bollag
G
,
Shokat
KM
,
Rosen
N
. 
RAF inhibitors transactivate RAF dimers and ERK signalling in cells with wild-type BRAF
.
Nature
2010
;
464
:
427
30
.
89.
Whittaker
SR
,
Theurillat
JP
,
Van Allen
E
,
Wagle
N
,
Hsiao
J
,
Cowley
GS
, et al
A genome-scale RNA interference screen implicates NF1 loss in resistance to RAF inhibition
.
Cancer Discov
2013
;
3
:
350
62
.
90.
Poulikakos
PI
,
Persaud
Y
,
Janakiraman
M
,
Kong
X
,
Ng
C
,
Moriceau
G
, et al
RAF inhibitor resistance is mediated by dimerization of aberrantly spliced BRAF(V600E)
.
Nature
2011
;
480
:
387
90
.
91.
Johannessen
CM
,
Boehm
JS
,
Kim
SY
,
Thomas
SR
,
Wardwell
L
,
Johnson
LA
, et al
COT drives resistance to RAF inhibition through MAP kinase pathway reactivation
.
Nature
2010
;
468
:
968
72
.
92.
Shi
H
,
Moriceau
G
,
Kong
X
,
Lee
MK
,
Lee
H
,
Koya
RC
, et al
Melanoma whole-exome sequencing identifies (V600E)B-RAF amplification-mediated acquired B-RAF inhibitor resistance
.
Nat Commun
2012
;
3
:
724
.
93.
Wagle
N
,
Emery
C
,
Berger
MF
,
Davis
MJ
,
Sawyer
A
,
Pochanard
P
, et al
Dissecting therapeutic resistance to RAF inhibition in melanoma by tumor genomic profiling
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
3085
96
.
94.
Wang
H
,
Daouti
S
,
Li
WH
,
Wen
Y
,
Rizzo
C
,
Higgins
B
, et al
Identification of the MEK1(F129L) activating mutation as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to MEK inhibition in human cancers carrying the B-RafV600E mutation
.
Cancer Res
2011
;
71
:
5535
45
.
95.
Ascierto
PA
,
Simeone
E
,
Giannarelli
D
,
Grimaldi
AM
,
Romano
A
,
Mozzillo
N
. 
Sequencing of BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma: a possible algorithm for clinical use
.
J Transl Med
2012
;
10
:
107
.
96.
Flaherty
KT
,
Robert
C
,
Hersey
P
,
Nathan
P
,
Garbe
C
,
Milhem
M
, et al
Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;367:107-14.
97.
Ascierto
PA
,
Schadendorf
D
,
Berking
C
,
Agarwala
SS
,
van Herpen
CM
,
Queirolo
P
, et al
MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study
.
Lancet Oncol
2013
;
14
:
249
56
.
98.
Carvajal
RD
,
Sosman
JA
,
Quevedo
F
,
Milhem
M
,
Joshua
AM
,
Kudchadkar
RR
, et al
Phase II study of selumetinib (sel) versus temozolomide (TMZ) in gnaq/Gna11 (Gq/11) mutant (mut) uveal melanoma (UM)
.
J Clin Oncol
31
, 
2013
(
suppl; abstr CRA9003
).
99.
Flaherty
KT
,
Infante
JR
,
Daud
A
,
Gonzalez
R
,
Kefford
RF
,
Sosman
J
, et al
Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
367
:
1694
703
.
100.
Kim
KB
,
Kefford
R
,
Pavlick
AC
,
Infante
JR
,
Ribas
A
,
Sosman
JA
, et al
Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor Trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor
.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
482
9
.
101.
Su
F
,
Viros
A
,
Milagre
C
,
Trunzer
K
,
Bollag
G
,
Spleiss
O
, et al
RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
207
15
.
102.
Gonzalez
R
,
Ribas
A
,
Daud
A
,
Pavlick
A
,
Gajewski
TF
,
Puzanov
I
, et al
Phase IB Study of Vemurafenib in Combination with the MEK inhibitor, GDC-0973, in Patients (pts) with Unresectable or Metastatic BRAFV600 Mutated Melanoma (BRIM7)
[abstract]
. In:
Proceedings of the 37th ESMO Congress; 2012 Sep 28–Oct 2
;
Vienna, Australia. Lugano, Switzerland
:
ESMO
; 
2012
.
Abstract nr 2744
.
103.
Kefford
R
,
Miller
WH
 Jr
,
Tan
DS-W
,
Sullivan
RJ
,
Long
GV
,
Tai
WMD
, et al
Preliminary results from a phase Ib/II, open-label, dose-escalation study of the oral BRAF inhibitor LGX818 in combination with the oral MEK1/2 inhibitor MEK162 in BRAF V600-dependent advanced solid tumors
.
J Clin Oncol
31
, 
2013
(
suppl; abstr 9029
).
104.
Kwong
LN
,
Costello
JC
,
Liu
H
,
Jiang
S
,
Helms
TL
,
Langsdorf
AE
, et al
Oncogenic NRAS signaling differentially regulates survival and proliferation in melanoma
.
Nat Med
2012
;
18
:
1503
10
.
105.
Ji
Z
,
Njauw
CN
,
Taylor
M
,
Neel
V
,
Flaherty
KT
,
Tsao
H
. 
p53 rescue through HDM2 antagonism suppresses melanoma growth and potentiates MEK inhibition
.
J Invest Dermatol
2012
;
132
:
356
64
.
106.
Sumimoto
H
,
Imabayashi
F
,
Iwata
T
,
Kawakami
Y
. 
The BRAF-MAPK signaling pathway is essential for cancer-immune evasion in human melanoma cells
.
J Exp Med
2006
;
203
:
1651
6
.
107.
Khalili
JS
,
Liu
S
,
Rodriguez-Cruz
TG
,
Whittington
M
,
Wardell
S
,
Liu
C
, et al
Oncogenic BRAF(V600E) promotes stromal cell-mediated immunosuppression via induction of interleukin-1 in melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
5329
40
.
108.
Boni
A
,
Cogdill
AP
,
Dang
P
,
Udayakumar
D
,
Njauw
CN
,
Sloss
CM
, et al
Selective BRAFV600E inhibition enhances T-cell recognition of melanoma without affecting lymphocyte function
.
Cancer Res
2010
;
70
:
5213
9
.
109.
Frederick
DT
,
Piris
A
,
Cogdill
AP
,
Cooper
ZA
,
Lezcano
C
,
Ferrone
CR
, et al
BRAF inhibition is associated with enhanced melanoma antigen expression and a more favorable tumor microenvironment in patients with metastatic melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
1225
31
.
110.
Donia
M
,
Fagone
P
,
Nicoletti
F
,
Andersen
RS
,
Hogdall
E
,
Straten
PT
, et al
BRAF inhibition improves tumor recognition by the immune system: potential implications for combinatorial therapies against melanoma involving adoptive T-cell transfer
.
Oncoimmunology
2012
;
1
:
1476
83
.
111.
Liu
C
,
Peng
W
,
Xu
C
,
Lou
Y
,
Zhang
M
,
Wargo
JA
, et al
BRAF inhibition increases tumor infiltration by T cells and enhances the antitumor activity of adoptive immunotherapy in mice
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
393
403
.
112.
Wilmott
JS
,
Long
GV
,
Howle
JR
,
Haydu
LE
,
Sharma
RN
,
Thompson
JF
, et al
Selective BRAF inhibitors induce marked T-cell infiltration into human metastatic melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
1386
94
.
113.
Ribas
A
,
Hodi
FS
,
Callahan
M
,
Konto
C
,
Wolchok
J
. 
Hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab
.
N Engl J Med
2013
;
368
:
1365
6
.