Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 May 24;7(21):30453-60.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8351.

Comparative profiles of BRAF inhibitors: the paradox index as a predictor of clinical toxicity

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative profiles of BRAF inhibitors: the paradox index as a predictor of clinical toxicity

Charles H Adelmann et al. Oncotarget. .

Abstract

BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy is associated with the induction of neoplasia, most commonly cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC). This toxicity is explained in part by "paradoxical ERK activation," or the hyperactivation of ERK signaling by BRAFi in BRAF wild-type cells. However, the rate of cuSCC induction varies widely among BRAFi. To explore this mechanistically, we profiled paradoxical ERK activation by vemurafenib, dabrafenib, encorafenib (LGX818), and PLX8394, demonstrating that vemurafenib induces ERK activation the greatest, while dabrafenib and encorafenib have higher "paradox indices", defined as the pERK activation EC80 divided by the IC80 against A375, corresponding to wider therapeutic windows for achieving tumor inhibition without paradoxical ERK activation. Our results identify differences in the paradox indices of these compounds as a potential mechanism for the differences in cuSCC induction rates and highlight the utility of using ERK activity as a biomarker for maximizing the clinical utility of BRAFi.

Keywords: BRAF; melanoma; paradoxical ERK; small molecule inhibitor; squamous cell carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Paradoxical ERK activation profiles and paradox indices correlate with BRAFi clinical toxicities
a–d. MAPK stimulation in immortalized human keratinocytes (HaCaT) stably expressing HRASG12V was measured through quantitative western blotting of phosphorylated ERK (pERK), normalized to total ERK levels after 15 minutes of treatment. Vemurafenib strongly simulated pERK, as did dabrafenib and encorafenib at lower levels. PLX8394 did not stimulate pERK. Efficacy in melanoma was measured with cell viability assay conducted at 72 hours and quantitatively compared to pERK induction in the text. e–h. Time-course treatment of HaCaTHRASG12V at the IC80 against A375 of each compound. Treatment was refreshed at 36 hours. AUC measurements rank pERK induction strength from greatest to least: vemurafenib, dabrafenib, encorafenib, PLX8394. Summary parameters for each compound are compiled in Table 1. (*p<0.05; *** p<0.001; NS = not significant, n≥3 for all data points).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Paradoxical ERK activation and apoptosis suppression profiles are consistent with differences in proliferation
a. Apoptosis 24 hours after 700J/m2 UV-irradiation of HaCaTHRASG12V cells measured with AnnexinV/TMRE FACs. Only vemurafenib treatment induced significant apoptosis suppression. b–c. Colony growth assay after 12 days of continual drug treatment, quantified by total colony area (ImageJ), showed strong growth advantage for vemurafenib and a detectable advantage with encorafenib and dabrafenib versus control. Scale bar on representative images is 5 cm. All statistical tests were two-tailed, unpaired Student's t-tests. Summary parameters for each compound are compiled in Table 1. (*p<0.05; *** p<0.001; NS = not significant, n≥3 for all data points).

References

    1. Wan PT, Garnett MJ, Roe SM, Lee S, Niculescu-Duvaz D, Good VM, Jones CM, Marshall CJ, Springer CJ, Barford D, Marais R. Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF. Cell. 2004;116:855–867. - PubMed
    1. Jang S, Atkins MB. Treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma: the role of vemurafenib and other therapies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95:24–31. - PubMed
    1. Dummer R, Robert C, Nyakas M, McArthur G, Kudchadkar R, Gomez Roca C, Sullivan R, Flaherty K, Murer C, Michel D, Tang Z, Moutouh-de Parseval L, Delord JP. 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. 2013:31.
    1. Sullivan R, Weber J, Patel S, Dummer R, Miller WH, Cosgrove D, Carlino M, Tan D, Lebbe C, Cipani T, Elez E, Maacke H, Nikolopoulos P, Aout M, Moutouh-de Parseval L, Ascierto P. A phase Ib/II study of BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) encorafenib (ENCO) plus MEK inhibitor (MEKi) binimetinib (BINI) in cutaneous melanoma patients naive to BRAFi treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2013:31.
    1. Zhang C, Spevak W, Zhang Y, Burton EA, Ma Y, Habets G, Zhang J, Lin J, Ewing T, Matusow B, Tsang G, Marimuthu A, Cho H, Wu G, Wang W, Fong D, et al. RAF inhibitors that evade paradoxical MAPK pathway activation. Nature. 2015;526:583–586. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms