Advertisement
Small Molecule Therapeutics

Targeting the MAPK Signaling Pathway in Cancer: Promising Preclinical Activity with the Novel Selective ERK1/2 Inhibitor BVD-523 (Ulixertinib)

Ursula A. Germann, Brinley F. Furey, William Markland, Russell R. Hoover, Alex M. Aronov, Jeffrey J. Roix, Michael Hale, Diane M. Boucher, David A. Sorrell, Gabriel Martinez-Botella, Matthew Fitzgibbon, Paul Shapiro, Michael J. Wick, Ramin Samadani, Kathryn Meshaw, Anna Groover, Gary DeCrescenzo, Mark Namchuk, Caroline M. Emery, Saurabh Saha and Dean J. Welsch
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0456 Published November 2017

Abstract

Aberrant activation of signaling through the RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK (MAPK) pathway is implicated in numerous cancers, making it an attractive therapeutic target. Although BRAF and MEK-targeted combination therapy has demonstrated significant benefit beyond single-agent options, the majority of patients develop resistance and disease progression after approximately 12 months. Reactivation of ERK signaling is a common driver of resistance in this setting. Here we report the discovery of BVD-523 (ulixertinib), a novel, reversible, ATP-competitive ERK1/2 inhibitor with high potency and ERK1/2 selectivity. In vitro BVD-523 treatment resulted in reduced proliferation and enhanced caspase activity in sensitive cells. Interestingly, BVD-523 inhibited phosphorylation of target substrates despite increased phosphorylation of ERK1/2. In in vivo xenograft studies, BVD-523 showed dose-dependent growth inhibition and tumor regression. BVD-523 yielded synergistic antiproliferative effects in a BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma cell line xenograft model when used in combination with BRAF inhibition. Antitumor activity was also demonstrated in in vitro and in vivo models of acquired resistance to single-agent and combination BRAF/MEK–targeted therapy. On the basis of these promising results, these studies demonstrate BVD-523 holds promise as a treatment for ERK-dependent cancers, including those whose tumors have acquired resistance to other treatments targeting upstream nodes of the MAPK pathway. Assessment of BVD-523 in clinical trials is underway (NCT01781429, NCT02296242, and NCT02608229). Mol Cancer Ther; 16(11); 2351–63. ©2017 AACR.

Introduction

Through aberrant activation of ERK signaling, genetic alterations in RAS or RAF family members result in rapid tumor growth, increased cell survival, and resistance to apoptosis. Activating mutations of RAS family members KRAS and NRAS are found in approximately 30% of all human cancers, with particularly high incidence in pancreatic and colorectal cancer (1, 2). Constitutively activating mutations in BRAF (codon for V600) have been observed primarily in melanoma (∼48%), papillary thyroid carcinoma (∼44%), colorectal cancer (∼15%), hairy cell leukemia (∼100%), and non–small cell lung cancer (∼4%; ref. 3). Although rare, cancers bearing genetic mutations that result in changes of the downstream components ERK (MAPK1 and MAPK3) and MEK (MAP2K1 and MAP2K2) have also been reported (4, 5). Furthermore, alterations known to activate the MAPK (RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK) pathway are also common in the setting of resistance to targeted therapies, for example inhibitors of BRAF, MEK, and ALK (6). Thus, targeting the MAPK pathway terminal master kinases (ERK1/2) is a promising strategy for the treatment of a broad spectrum of tumors harboring pathway-activating alterations.

Clinical precedent for targeting the MAPK pathway already exists; three MAPK pathway-targeting drugs have been approved by the FDA for single-agent treatment of nonresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma with BRAFV600 mutations: the BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (7, 8). An additional MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, is approved in this indication as part of a combination regimen with vemurafenib; furthermore, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is also approved in this indication (9, 10). Approved BRAF inhibitors provide the advantage of selectivity for BRAFV600-mutant proteins, by virtue of ability to signal as monomers, unlike wild-type RAF proteins which require dimerization to activate signaling, therefore providing a greater therapeutic index.

Importantly, the concomitant use of BRAF- plus MEK-targeted therapies has demonstrated simultaneous targeting of different nodes in the MAPK pathway can enhance the magnitude and duration of response (11–13).

Despite improvements in clinical outcomes seen with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitor combination therapies, durable benefit is limited by the eventual development of acquired resistance and subsequent disease progression, with median progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from approximately 9 to 11 months (11, 13–15). Genetic mechanisms of acquired resistance to single-agent BRAF inhibition have been intensely studied; some examples of identified resistance mechanisms include splice variants of BRAF (16), BRAFV600E amplification (17), MEK mutations (18), NRAS mutations, and RTK activation (19, 20). Resistance mechanisms in the setting of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy are beginning to emerge and mirror that of BRAF single-agent resistance (21, 22). These genetic events all share the ability to reactivate ERK signaling. Indeed, reactivated MAPK pathway signaling as measured by ERK transcriptional targets is common in tumor biopsies from BRAF inhibitor–resistant patients (23). Moreover, ERK1/2 reactivation has been observed in the absence of a genetic mechanism of resistance (24, 25). The quest to achieve durable clinical benefit has led researchers to focus on evaluating additional agents that target the downstream MAPK components ERK1/2. Inhibiting ERK may provide important clinical benefit to patients with acquired resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibition. ERK family kinases have shown promise as therapeutic targets in preclinical cancer models, including those resistant to BRAF or MEK inhibitors (26–28); however, the potential for ERK inhibitors expands beyond acquired resistance in melanoma.

Targeting ERK1/2 is a rational cornerstone therapy in any tumor type harboring known drivers of MAPK, not only BRAF/MEK therapy–relapsed patients. As ERK1/2 reside downstream in the pathway, they represent a particularly attractive treatment strategy within the MAPK cascade that may avoid upstream resistance mechanisms. Here, we report the preclinical characterization of BVD-523 (ulixertinib) in models of MAPK pathway–dependent cancers, including drug-naïve and BRAF/MEK therapy acquired–resistance models. Phase I clinical studies of BVD-523 are ongoing (NCT01781429, NCT02296242, and NCT02608229).

Materials and Methods

Compounds

Compounds were sourced from the following vendors; SCH772984 (SelleckChem), pyrazolylpyrrole (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), Temozolomide (Temodar, Schering Corporation), dabrafenib (Chemietek), trametinib (LC Laboratories), vemurafenib (Focus Synthesis LLC), and selumetinib (Chemietek). BVD-523 was synthesized as per method described in US patent number 7,354,939 B2.

Ki determination of ERK2

The inhibitory activity of BVD-523 against ERK2 was determined using a radiometric assay, with final concentration of the components being 100 mmol/L HEPES (pH 7.5), 10 mmol/L MgCl2, 1 mmol/L dithiothreitol (DTT), 0.12 nmol/L ERK2, 10 μmol/L myelin basic protein (MBP), and 50 μmol/L 33P-γ-ATP. All reaction components, with the exception of ATP and MBP, were premixed and aliquoted (33 μL) into a 96-well plate. A stock solution of compound in DMSO was used to make up to 500-fold dilutions; a 1.5-μL aliquot of DMSO or inhibitor in DMSO was added to each well. The reaction was initiated by adding the substrates 33P-γ-ATP and MBP (33 μL). After 20 minutes, the reaction was quenched with 20% (w/v) tricholoracetic acid (TCA; 55 μL) containing 4 mmol/L ATP, transferred to the GF/B filter plates, and washed 3 times with 5% (w/v) TCA. Following the addition of Ultimate Gold scintillant (50 μL), the samples were counted in a Packard TopCount. From the activity versus concentration titration curve, the Ki value was determined by fitting the data to an equation for competitive tight binding inhibition kinetics using Prism software, version 3.0.

IC50 determination of ERK2

ERK2 activity was assayed by a standard coupled-enzyme assay. The final concentrations were as follows: 0.1 mol/L HEPES (pH 7.5), 10 mmol/L MgCl2, 1 mmol/L DTT, 2.5 mmol/L phosphoenolpyruvate, 200 μmol/L NADH, 50 μg/mL pyruvate kinase, 10 μg/mL lactate dehydrogenase, 65 μmol/L ATP, and 800 μmol/L peptide (ATGPLSPGPFGRR). All of the reaction components except ATP were premixed with ERK and aliquoted into assay-plate wells. BVD-523 in DMSO was introduced into each well, keeping the concentration of DMSO per well constant. BVD-523 concentrations spanned a 500-fold range for each titration. The assay plate was incubated at 30°C for 10 minutes in the plate reader compartment of the spectrophotometer (Molecular Devices) before initiating the reaction by adding ATP. The absorbance change at 340 nm was monitored as a function of time; the initial slope corresponds to the rate of the reaction. The rate versus concentration of the BVD-523 titration curve was fitted either to an equation for competitive tight-binding inhibition kinetics to determine a value for Ki or to a 3-parameter fit to determine the IC50 using Prism software, version 3.0.

Cell lines

The cell lines RKO, SW48, A375, MIAPaCa-2, HCT116, Colo205, HT-29, ZR-75-1, and AN3Ca were obtained from ATCC, confirmed mycoplasma negative, and authenticated by STR genotyping. Cell line G-361 was obtained from ECACC and confirmed mycoplasma negative and authenticated by STR genotyping. For each cell line, upon thawing, experiments were performed when required cell number was achieved to avoid long-term passaging of cells.

Antitumor activity in A375 xenografts

Xenografts were initiated with A375 cells maintained by serial subcutaneous transplantation in female athymic nude mice. Each test mouse received an A375 tumor fragment (1 mm3) implanted subcutaneously in the right flank. Once tumors reached target size (80–120 mm3), animals were randomized into treatment and control groups, and drug treatment was initiated. BVD-523 in 1% (w/v) carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) was administered orally twice daily at doses of 5, 25, 50, 100, or 150 mg/kg.

The efficacy of BVD-523 in combination with dabrafenib was evaluated in mice randomized into 9 groups of 15 and 1 group (Group 10) of 10. Dabrafenib was administered orally at 50 or 100 mg/kg once daily and BVD-523 was administered orally at 50 or 100 mg/kg twice daily, alone and in combination, until study end; vehicle-treated control groups were also included. Combination dosing was stopped on Day 20 to monitor for tumor regrowth. Animals were monitored individually and euthanized when each tumor reached an endpoint volume of 2,000 mm3 or on the final day (day 45), whichever came first, and median time to endpoint (TTE) calculated. The combination was also evaluated in an upstaged A375 model where larger tumors in the range 228–1,008 mm3 were evaluated. Here, mice were randomized into 1 group (Group 1) of 14 and 4 groups (Groups 2–5) of 20. Dosing was initiated on day 1 with dabrafenib plus BVD-523 (25 mg/kg dabrafenib + 50 mg/kg BVD-523 or 50 mg/kg dabrafenib + 100 mg/kg BVD-523), with each agent given orally twice daily until study end. The study included 50 mg/kg dabrafenib and 100 mg/kg BVD-523 monotherapy groups as well as a vehicle-treated control group. Tumors were measured twice weekly. Combination dosing was stopped on day 42 to monitor for tumor regrowth through study end (day 60). Treatment outcome was determined from % tumor growth delay (TGD), defined as the percent increase in median TTE for treated versus control mice, with differences between groups analyzed via log-rank survival analysis. For tumor growth inhibition (TGI) analysis, % TGI values were calculated and reported for each treatment (T) group versus the control (C). Mice were also monitored for complete regression (CR) and partial response (PR). Animals with a CR at the end of the study were additionally classified as tumor free survivors (TFS). All in vivo studies were conducted in accordance with generally recognized good laboratory practices, all procedures were in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act Regulations (9 CFR 3). All in vivo studies were reviewed and approved by the appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC).

BVD-523 activity in Colo205 xenografts

Human Colo205 cells were cultured in RPMI1640 supplemented with 10% (v/v) FBS, 100 U/mL penicillin, 100 μg/mL streptomycin (Invitrogen), and 2 mmol/L l-glutamine. Cells were cultured for <4 passages prior to implantation. Female athymic nude mice (19–23 g) were injected subcutaneously with 2 × 106 Colo205 cells into the right dorsal axillary region on day 0.

Mice with an approximate tumor volume of 200 mm3 were randomized unblinded into 6 experimental groups. Vehicle control, 1% CMC (w/v), was prepared weekly. BVD-523 was suspended in 1% (w/v) CMC at the desired concentration and homogenized on ice at 6,500 rpm for 50 minutes. BVD-523 suspensions were prepared weekly and administered orally twice daily at total daily doses of 50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/kg (n = 12/group) on an 8- or 16-hour dosing schedule for 13 days. The vehicle control (n = 12) was administered using the same dosing regimen.

Efficacy testing in a patient-derived tumor xenograft

BVD-523 was evaluated in a patient-derived xenograft (ST052C) representing melanoma from a BRAFV600E patient who had become clinically refractory to vemurafenib. Immunocompromised mice between 5–8 weeks of age were housed on irradiated corncob bedding (Teklad) in individual HEPA ventilated cages (Sealsafe Plus, Techniplast USA) on a 12-hour light–dark cycle at 70–74°F (21–23°C) and 40–60% humidity. Animals were fed water ad libitum (reverse osmosis, 2 ppm Cl2) and an irradiated standard rodent diet (Teklad 2919) consisting of 19% protein, 9% fat, and 4% fiber. Tumor fragments were harvested from host animals and implanted into immunodeficient mice. The study was initiated at a mean tumor volume of approximately 170 mm3, whereby the animals were randomized unblinded into 4 groups, including a control [1% (v/v) CMC orally, twice daily × 31] and 3 treatment groups [BVD-523 (100 mg/kg), dabrafenib (50 mg/kg), or BVD-523/dabrafenib (100/50 mg/kg), n = 10/group]; All treatment drugs were administered orally on a twice daily × 31 schedule.

Results

Discovery and initial characterization of the novel ERK1/2 inhibitor, BVD-523 (ulixertinib)

Following extensive optimization of leads originally identified using a high-throughput, small-molecule screen (29), a novel adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-competitive ERK1/2 inhibitor, BVD-523 (ulixertinib) was identified (Fig. 1A). BVD-523 is a potent ERK inhibitor with a Ki of 0.04 ± 0.02 nmol/L against ERK2. It was shown to be a reversible, competitive inhibitor of ATP, as the IC50 values for ERK2 inhibition increased linearly with increasing ATP concentration, with dependence of enzyme rate on BVD-523 concentration (Fig. 1B and C). The IC50 remained nearly constant for incubation times ≥10 minutes, suggesting rapid equilibrium and binding of BVD-523 with ERK2 (Fig. 1D). BVD-523 is also a tight-binding inhibitor of recombinant ERK1 (30), exhibiting a Ki of <0.3 nmol/L.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Discovery and characterization of novel ERK1/2 inhibitor BVD-523 (ulixertinib). A, Structure of BVD-523. B, Inhibitory potency of BVD-523 for ERK2 as a function of ATP concentration, C, Demonstration of enzyme inhibition as a function of inhibitor concentration in the presence of 50 μmol/L ATP, and D, Measurement of inhibitory potency as a function of incubation time. Binding of the ERK inhibitors BVD-523, SCH772984, and pyrazolylpyrrole to ERK2 (E) and phosphorylated ERK2 as measured by changes in enzyme melting temperatures (p38a included as negative control; F). G, Potency of BVD-523 against a panel of kinases. For B–G, representative data are shown.

Binding of BVD-523 to ERK2 was demonstrated using calorimetric studies and compared with data generated using the ERK inhibitors SCH772984 (26) and pyrazolylpyrrole (31). All compounds bound and stabilized inactive ERK2 with increasing concentration, as indicated by positive ΔTm values (Fig. 1E). The 10- to 15-degree change in ΔTm observed with BVD-523 and SCH772984 is consistent with compounds that have low nanomolar binding affinities (32). BVD-523 demonstrated a strong binding affinity to both phosphorylated active ERK2 (pERK2) and inactive ERK2 (Fig. 1F), with a stronger affinity to pERK2 compared with inactive ERK2. BVD-523 did not interact with the negative control protein p38α MAP kinase (Fig. 1F).

BVD-523 demonstrated excellent ERK1/2 kinase selectivity based on biochemical counter-screens against 75 kinases, in addition to ERK1 and ERK2. The ATP concentrations were approximately equal to the Km in all assays. Kinases inhibited to greater than 50% by 2 μmol/L BVD-523 were retested to generate Ki values (or apparent Ki; Fig. 1G). Twelve of the 14 kinases had a Ki of <1 μmol/L. The selectivity of BVD-523 for ERK2 was >7,000-fold for all kinases tested except ERK1, which was inhibited with a Ki of <0.3 nmol/L (10-fold). Therefore, BVD-523 is a highly potent and selective inhibitor of ERK1/2.

BVD-523 inhibits cellular proliferation and enhances caspase-3/7 activity in vitro while demonstrating substrate inhibition despite increased ERK1/2 phorphorylation

The antiproliferative impact of BVD-523 treatment on sensitive cancer cell lines was characterized by FACS analysis on BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma cell line, UACC-62, following 24-hour treatment with BVD-523. BVD-523–treated cells were arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle in a concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 2A; Supplementary Fig. S1A). The percentage of cells arrested in G1 was also demonstrated to be time dependent, as shown by increasing proportion of KRASG12C-mutant pancreatic cell line MiaPaca-2 in G1 following 24 and 48 hours treatment with BVD-523 (Supplementary Fig. S1B).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

BVD-523 inhibits cellular proliferation and enhances caspase-3/7 activity in vitro. A, Percentage of UACC-62 cell population in G2, S, or G1 phase of the cell cycle following incubation for 24 hours with increasing concentrations of BVD-523 (representative data shown). B, Cell line–dependent changes in caspase activity after 48 hours of exposure to BVD-523 (0, 0.082, 0.247, 0.741, 2.222, 6.667, 20 μmol/L) compared with the IC50 for cell viability (maximum change in caspase shown, <2-fold: −; 2-fold: +/−; 2- 3- fold increase: +; 3- 6- fold increase: +++; >6-fold increase +++++; n = 3). C, MAPK pathway and effector proteins are modulated by acute (4-hour) and prolonged (24-hour) BVD-523 treatment in BRAFV600E-mutant A375 cells (representative data shown). D, Levels of pERK1/2, pRSK, and Cyclin D1 measured in cell lines (A375, AN3Ca, Colo205, HCT116, HT29, and MIAPaca2) following 24-hour treatment with ERK1/2 inhibitors BVD-523 (BVD), Vx11e (Vx), GDC-0994 (GDC), or SCH772984 (SCH; n = 4 for each treatment group per cell line). Data are average ± SEM relative to DMSO control.

In addition, caspase-3/7 activity was analyzed as a measure of apoptosis in multiple human cancer cell lines (Fig. 2B). A cell-line–dependent increase in caspase-3/7 was observed following treatment with BVD-523 for 48 hours. BVD-523 treatment resulted in pronounced caspase-3/7 induction (greater than 3-fold) in a subset of cell lines with sensitivity to BVD-523 (<2 μmol/L IC50).

To further characterize the mechanism of action and effects on signaling elicited by BVD-523, the levels of various effector and MAPK-related proteins were assessed in BVD-523–treated BRAFV600E-mutant A375 melanoma cells (Fig. 2C). Phospho-ERK1/2 levels increased in a concentration-dependent manner after 4 and 24 hours of BVD-523 treatment. Despite prominent concentration-dependent increases in pERK1/2 observed with 2 μmol/L BVD-523 treatment, phosphorylation of the ERK1/2 target RSK1/2 was reduced at both 4 and 24 hours, which is consistent with sustained inhibition. Total protein levels of DUSP6, transcription of which is a target of ERK1/2, were also attenuated at 4 and 24 hours. Following 24 hours of treatment with BVD-523, the apoptotic marker BIM-EL increased in a dose-dependent manner, while cyclin D1 and pRB were attenuated at 2 μmol/L. All effects are consistent with on-target ERK1/2 inhibition.

To examine the effects of BVD-523 on signaling relative to other known ERK1/2 inhibitors (SCH772984, GDC-0994, and Vx-11e), a large-scale reverse-phase protein array (RPPA) of 39 proteins was employed in a variety of cell lines with sensitivity to ERK inhibition (Supplementary Fig. S2). Cell lines with common alterations in BRAF and RAS were assayed: BRAFV600E-mutant lines A375, Colo205, and HT29; KRASG12C-mutant cell line MIAPACa-2; KRASG13D-mutant cell line HCT116; and AN3Ca with atypical HRASF82L mutation. Changes in protein levels are shown as a percentage change from dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-treated control (Supplementary Fig. S2). All ERK inhibitors elicited qualitatively similar protein effects, with the exception of phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [pERK1/2 (ERK1/2 -T202, -Y204)]; SCH772984 inhibited pERK1/2 in all cell lines, while BVD-523, GDC-0994, and Vx-11e markedly increased pERK1/2 (Fig. 2D). Phospho-p90 RSK (pRSK1) and cyclin D1, which are proximal and distal targets of pERK1/2, respectively, were similarly inhibited by all inhibitors tested regardless of the degree of ERK1/2 phosphorylation (Fig. 2D). These independent findings for BVD-523 are consistent with studies showing that phosphorylation of ERK1/2 substrates RSK1/2 remained inhibited despite dramatically elevated pERK1/2 by Western blot analysis in A375 cells (Fig. 2C), in addition to protein-binding studies demonstrating BVD-523 binding and stabilization of pERK1/2 and inactive ERK1/2 (Fig. 1E and F). Therefore, measuring increased pERK1/2 levels could be considered as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for BVD-523, while quantifying inhibition of ERK1/2 targets such as pRSK or DUSP6 could serve this purpose more directly.

Additional protein changes are of note in this RPPA dataset (Supplementary Fig. S2). Decreased pS6-ribosomal protein is indicated to be another pharmacodynamic marker of ERK1/2 inhibition, as evidenced in all cell lines with all inhibitors (Supplementary Fig. S3A). Furthermore, prominent induction of pAKT appears to be a cell line–dependent observation, where each ERK1/2 inhibitor induced pAKT in cell lines A375 and AN3CA cells (Supplementary Fig. S3A). Interestingly, the degree of inhibition of survival marker pBAD appears to differ between compounds, with only modest inhibition of pBAD by GDC-0994 compared with the other ERK1/2 inhibitors tested (Supplementary Fig. S3B).

Next, we investigated how BVD-523 affects cellular localization of ERK1/2 and downstream target pRSK in a BRAFV600E-mutant RKO colorectal cell line (Supplementary Fig. S3C). In resting cells, ERK1/2 localizes to the cytoplasm, and once stimulated, pERK1/2 migrates to target organelles, particularly the nucleus where transcriptional targets are activated (33). In DMSO-treated control cells, pERK1/2 is evident in both nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions, which is likely reflective of MAPK pathway activity due to the presence of BRAFV600E in this cell line. Treatment with BVD-523 resulted in elevated pERK1/2 in the nucleus and cytoplasm, as well as a modest increase in nuclear total ERK1/2 compared with DMSO-treated cells, suggesting that compound-induced stabilization of pERK1/2 stimulates some nuclear translocation. Despite increased pERK1/2 in both compartments, pRSK levels are lower in the cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments compared with DMSO control. Comparator MAPK signaling inhibitors (i.e., trametinib, SCH772984, dabrafenib) inhibited phosphorylation of ERK1/2 and RSK, as reflected by lower levels in the nuclear and cytoplasmic compartments. These data again suggest that BVD-523–associated increases in pERK1/2 are evident in both the cytoplasm and nucleus; however, this does not translate to activation of target substrates. This is consistent with data presented in Fig. 2C and D.

BVD-523 demonstrates in vivo antitumor activity in BRAFV600E-mutant cancer cell line xenograft models

On the basis of our in vitro findings that BVD-523 reduced proliferation and induced apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner, BVD-523 was administered by oral gavage to demonstrate its in vivo antitumor activity in models with MAPK/ERK pathway dependency. Xenograft models of melanoma (cell line A375), and colorectal cancer (cell line Colo205), were utilized, both of which harbor a BRAFV600E mutation.

In A375 cell line xenografts, 5, 25, 50, and 100 mg/kg twice daily doses of BVD-523 were compared following 18 days of treatment. For all doses, no significant body weight changes were observed (Supplementary Fig. S4A). BVD-523 demonstrated significant dose-dependent antitumor activity starting at 50 mg/kg twice daily (Fig. 3A). Doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg twice daily significantly attenuated tumor growth, with tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 71% (P = 0.004) and 99% (P < 0.001), respectively. Seven partial regressions (PR) were noted in the 100 mg/kg twice daily group; no regression responses were noted in any other group.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

In vivo BVD-523 antitumor activity. Effects of orally dosed BVD-523 monotherapy on tumor volume in A375 (BVD-523 groups n = 15, vehicle group n = 10; A) and Colo205 (n = 12 per group; B) cell line xenografts. Mean tumor volume ± SEM is plotted for each group. In A375, 50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg BVD-523 twice daily are significant compared with vehicle control (P = 0.004 and P < 0.001 respectively). In Colo205, 50, 75, and 100 mg/kg BVD-523 twice-daily groups are significant compared with vehicle control (all P < 0.0001). C, IHC images for pERK in Colo205 xenograft tumors at 0, 1, 3, 8, 16, and 24 hours post-single 100 mg/kg dose of BVD-523. D, BVD-523 tumor concentrations and percent changes from baseline for pERK and DUSP6 mRNA are plotted at 0, 1, 3, 8, 16, and 24 hours post-single dose 100 mg/kg BVD-523 (representative data shown).

BVD-523 demonstrated antitumor efficacy in a Colo205 human colorectal cancer cell line xenograft model (Fig. 3B). No significant body weight changes were observed (Supplementary Fig. S4B). BVD-523 again showed significant dose-dependent tumor volume regressions at doses of 50, 75, and 100 mg/kg twice daily, yielding mean tumor regressions T/Ti (T = end of treatment, Ti = treatment initiation) of −48.2%, −77.2%, and −92.3%, respectively (all P < 0.0001). Regression was not observed at the lowest dose of BVD-523 (25 mg/kg twice daily); however, significant tumor growth inhibition, with a T/C (T = Treatment, C = Control) of 25.2% (P < 0.0001), was observed.

In addition, BVD-523 resulted in dose-dependent antitumor activity in KRASG12C-mutant pancreatic cell line xenograft model, MIAPaCa2, (Supplementary Fig. S4C). Here, animals were dosed with 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 mg/kg twice daily BVD-523 for 15 days. No significant body weight loss was observed in any treatment group (Supplementary Fig. S4D). At the highest dose administered for BVD-523 (100 mg/kg twice daily), significant tumor growth inhibition compared with vehicle-treated controls was observed, with a T/C of 5.3% on the last day of treatment (P < 0.0001). As a negative control, xenografts of mammary tumor cell line ZR-75-1 were also tested for BVD-523 antitumor activity. This model was not anticipated to respond to ERK inhibition, as it is not known to harbor alterations in the MAPK/ERK pathway. Indeed, at each dose of BVD-523 tested (10, 30, 60, 100 mg/kg twice daily), no antitumor activity was observed (Supplementary Fig. S4E), and no significant body weight loss was incurred (Supplementary Fig. S4F).

To establish the relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, BVD-523 tumor concentrations were compared with DUSP6 mRNA and pERK1/2 protein levels over a 24-hour period following a single 100 mg/kg oral dose of BVD-523 (Fig. 3C and D). Phosphorylation of ERK1/2 was low in untreated tumors. Following treatment with BVD-523, ERK1/2 phosphorylation steadily increased from 1 hour postdose to maximal levels at 8 hours postdose, then returned to predose levels by 24 hours. This increase in pERK1/2 correlated with BVD-523 drug tumor concentrations. The in vivo observation of increased pERK1/2 with BVD-523 treatment is consistent with earlier in vitro findings (Fig. 2C and D). Conversely, DUSP6 expression decreased with increasing BVD-523 tumor concentration (Fig. 3D). Maximal DUSP6 inhibition was observed 3 hours post-BVD-523 dose (−96% change from baseline), and similar to pERK, returned to baseline by 24 hours.

Combination therapy with BVD-523 and a BRAF inhibitor provides promising antitumor activity

Patients with BRAF-mutant cancer may acquire resistance to combined BRAF/MEK therapy (21), warranting consideration of other combination approaches within the MAPK pathway. We assessed the antiproliferative effects of combining BVD-523 with the BRAF inhibitors dabrafenib or vemurafenib in the BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma cell lines G-361 and A375. As anticipated, single agents BVD-523, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib were each active, and modest synergy was observed with a BVD-523 plus BRAF inhibitor combination (Supplementary Fig. S5A and S5B). This indicated that BVD-523 combined with BRAF inhibitors were at least additive and potentially synergistic in melanoma cell lines carrying a BRAFV600E mutation. Furthermore, generating acquired resistance in vitro following continuous culturing of BRAFV600E-mutant cell line (A375) in BRAF inhibitor plus BVD-523 was challenging. In contrast, generating resistance to dabrafenib alone occurred relatively rapidly (Supplementary Fig. S5C). Even resistance to combined dabrafenib and trametinib emerged before dabrafenib plus BVD-523.

The benefit of combined BRAF and ERK inhibition may not be fully realized in in vitro combination studies where concentrations are not limited by tolerability. To understand the benefit of the combination, efficacy was assessed in vivo utilizing xenografts of the BRAFV600E-mutant human melanoma cell line A375. Because of the response of combined dabrafenib and BVD-523 treatment, dosing in the combination groups was stopped on day 20 to monitor for tumor regrowth, and was reinitiated on day 42 (Fig. 4A). Tumors were measured twice weekly until the study was terminated on day 45. The median time to endpoint (TTE) for controls was 9.2 days, and the maximum possible tumor growth delay (TGD) of 35.8 days (end of study) was defined as 100%. Temozolomide treatment resulted in a TGD of 1.3 days (4%) and no regressions. The 50- and 100-mg/kg dabrafenib monotherapies produced TGDs of 6.9 days (19%) and 19.3 days (54%), respectively, a significant survival benefit (P < 0.001), and 1 PR in the 100 mg/kg group. The 100-mg/kg BVD-523 monotherapy resulted in a TGD of 9.3 days (26%), a significant survival benefit (P < 0.001), and 2 durable complete responses. The combinations of dabrafenib with BVD-523 each produced the maximum possible 100% TGD with statistically superior overall survival compared with their corresponding monotherapies (P < 0.001). The lowest dose combination produced a noteworthy 7/15 tumor-free survivors (TFS), and the 3 higher dosage combinations produced a total of 43/44 TFS, consistent with curative or near-curative activity (Fig. 4B). In summary, the combination of dabrafenib with BVD-523 produced a greater number of TFS and superior efficacy to either single agent.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Effect of combined BVD-523 and BRAF inhibition. A375 BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma cell line xenograft model with a tumor start volume of 75–144 mm3 (A and B), and in the same model with larger tumor volume (700–800 mm3) at the initiation of dosing (C and D). Mean ± SEM tumor volumes (top) and Kaplan–Meier survival (bottom) are presented for each study (n = 10 for each treatment group). In each experiment, combinations of dabrafenib with BVD-523 results in statistically superior overall survival compared with their corresponding controls (P < 0.001).

On the basis of the activity of BVD-523 plus dabrafenib in A375 xenograft models with a starting tumor volume of approximately 75–144 mm3, a follow-up experiment was conducted to determine the efficacy of combination therapy in “upstaged” A375 xenografts (average tumor start volume, 700–800 mm3; Fig. 4C). The median TTE for controls was 6.2 days, establishing a maximum possible TGD of 53.8 days, which was defined as 100% TGD for the 60-day study. BVD-523 100 mg/kg monotherapy produced a negligible TGD (0.7 day, 1%) and no significant survival difference from controls (P > 0.05). The distribution of TTEs and 2 PRs suggested there might have been a subset of responders to treatment with BVD-523 alone. Dabrafenib 50-mg/kg monotherapy was efficacious, yielding a TGD of 46.2 days (86%) and a significant survival benefit compared with controls (P < 0.001). This group had 5 PRs and 5 CRs, including 3 TFS, among the 11 evaluable mice (Fig. 4D). Both combinations of dabrafenib with BVD-523 produced the maximum 100% TGD and a significant survival benefit compared with controls (P < 0.001). Each combination produced 100% regression responses among evaluable mice, though there were distinctions in regression activity. The 25 mg/kg dabrafenib and 50 mg/kg BVD-523 combination had 2 PRs and 8 CRs, with 6/10 TFS, whereas the 50-mg/kg dabrafenib and 100-mg/kg BVD-523 combination had 11/11 TFS on day 60 (Fig. 4D). Overall, these data support the rationale for frontline combination of BVD-523 with BRAF-targeted therapy in BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, and this is likely to extend to other tumor types harboring this alteration.

BVD-523 exhibits activity in in vitro models of BRAF and MEK inhibitor resistance

Emergence of resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors limits their clinical efficacy. Here, we sought to model and compare the development of resistance to BRAF (dabrafenib), MEK (trametinib), and ERK1/2 (BVD-523) inhibition in vitro. Over several months, BRAFV600E-mutant A375 cells were cultured in progressively increasing concentrations of each inhibitor. Drug-resistant A375 cell lines were readily obtained following growth in high concentrations of trametinib or dabrafenib, while developing cell lines with resistance to BVD-523 proved challenging (Fig. 5A). Overall, these in vitro data suggest that at concentrations yielding similar target inhibition, resistance to BVD-523 is delayed compared with dabrafenib or trametinib, and may translate to durable responses in the clinic.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

BVD-523 demonstrates activity in models of resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibition. A, The emergence of resistance to BVD-523, dabrafenib, or trametinib in BRAFV600E A375 cells following exposure to increasing concentrations of drug is indicated. A strict set of “criteria” was applied (see Materials and Methods section) as to when the concentration of drug was increased. Each point on the plotted line represents a change of medium or cell split. B, In A375 cells cultured to be resistant to combined BRAF (dabrafenib) + MEK (trametinib), the fold change in IC50 compared with parental A375 of BVD-523, dabrafenib, trametinib, and paclitaxel was measured. C, Parental and BRAFV600E RKO cells engineered with endogenous heterozygous knock-in of MEK1Q56P were incubated with BRAF (vemurafenib or dabrafenib), MEK (trametinib), or ERK (BVD-523) inhibitor and cell viability assessed as a function of inhibitor concentration. Data presented are average ± SEM of three independent titrations of each inhibitor and cell line. D, Western blot analyses of pERK, pRSK, and pRB from cell lines treated in C. E and F, Knock-in of KRAS-mutant alleles into SW48 cell line significantly diminishes sensitivity to the MEK inhibitors trametinib and selumetinib, while comparative sensitivity to BVD-523 is retained (n = 3 per titration; data are average ± SEM).

Reactivation and dependence on ERK1/2 signaling is a common feature of acquired resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibition (26, 27); therefore, we evaluated the activity of BVD-523 in in vitro models of acquired resistance. First, a dabrafenib and trametinib combination-resistant A375 population was obtained using the increased concentration method (as described in detail in Supplementary Materials and Methods section of this manuscript). The IC50-fold change from parental A375 for dabrafenib, trametinib, and BVD-523 in the BRAF/MEK combination-resistant population is shown in Fig. 5B. BVD-523 IC50 was modestly shifted (2.5-fold), while dabrafenib and trametinib were more significantly shifted (8.5-fold and 13.5-fold, respectively; Fig. 5B). The cytotoxic agent paclitaxel was tested as a control with only a modest shift in potency observed. These data support the investigation of BVD-523 in the setting of BRAF/MEK therapy resistance, although the mechanism of resistance in this cell population remains to be characterized.

To further investigate the tractability of ERK1/2 inhibition in a model with a known mechanism of BRAF inhibitor resistance, we used AAV-mediated gene targeting to generate a pair of RKO BRAFV600E-mutant cell lines isogenic for the presence or absence of an engineered heterozygous knock-in of MEK1Q56P-activating mutation. MEK1/2 mutations, including MEK1Q56P, have been implicated in both single-agent BRAF and combination BRAF/MEK targeting therapy-acquired resistance in patients (18, 21, 34–36). Single-agent assays demonstrated that relative to the parental BRAFV600E::MEK1wt cells, the double-mutant BRAFV600E::MEK1Q56P cells displayed a markedly reduced sensitivity to the BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (Fig. 5C). In contrast, response to BVD-523 was essentially identical in both the parental and MEKQ56P-mutant cells, indicating that BVD-523 is not susceptible to this mechanism of acquired resistance. These results were confirmed in 2 independently derived double-mutant BRAFV600E::MEK1Q56P cell line clones, thus validating that results were specifically related to the presence of the MEK1Q56P mutation rather than an unrelated clonal artifact. Similar results were also observed with a second mechanistically distinct ERK1/2 inhibitor (SCH772984), supporting the expectation that these observations are specifically related to mechanistic inhibition of ERK1/2 and not due to an off-target compound effect.

To further characterize the mechanistic effects of BVD-523 on MAPK pathway signaling in BRAFV600E::MEK1Q56P cell lines, protein levels were assessed by Western blot analysis (Fig. 5D). In the parental BRAFV600E RKO cells, a reduced level of pRSK1/2 was observed following 4-hour treatment with BRAF (vemurafenib), MEK (trametinib), or ERK1/2 (BVD-523) inhibitors at pharmacologically active concentrations. In contrast, isogenic double-mutant BRAFV600E::MEK1Q56P cells did not exhibit reduced RSK phosphorylation following BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment, while BVD-523 remained effective in inhibiting pRSK1/2 to a level comparable with parental RKO. Similarly, pRB is reduced, indicating G0–G1 arrest by 24 hours of BVD-523 treatment in both parental RKO and BRAFV600E::MEK1Q56P. Notably, as introduction of the MEK-Q56P mutation alone increased the level of pERK compared with the RKO parental cell line, BVD-523 treatment did not appear to significantly further boost pERK levels in the engineered cells.

Acquired KRAS mutations are also known drivers of resistance to MAPK pathway inhibitors. To understand the susceptibility of BVD-523 to this mechanism of resistance, an isogenic panel of clinically relevant KRAS mutations in colorectal cell line SW48 was utilized. Sensitivity to BVD-523 was compared with MEK inhibitors selumetinib (37) and trametinib (Fig. 5E and F). Sensitivity to paclitaxel was unaltered (Supplementary Fig. S6). While several mutant KRAS alleles conferred robust to intermediate levels of resistance to MEK inhibition, sensitivity to BVD-523 was unaltered by the majority of alleles, and where a shift in sensitivity was observed, it was not to the extent observed with trametinib or selumetinib. Overall, these data suggest that BVD-523 is more efficacious in this context than MEK inhibitors.

BVD-523 demonstrates in vivo activity in a BRAF inhibitor–resistant patient-derived melanoma xenograft model

To confirm and extend the antitumor effects of BVD-523 observed in in vitro models of BRAF-/MEK-acquired resistance, we utilized a BRAF-resistant xenograft model derived from a patient with resistance to vemurafenib. BVD-523 was dosed by oral gavage at 100 mg/kg twice daily for 28 days, both alone and in combination with dabrafenib at 50 mg/kg twice daily (Fig. 6). With all regimens, no significant change in body weight was observed (Supplementary Fig. S7). As expected, minimal antitumor activity was demonstrated for single-agent dabrafenib (22% TGI). BVD-523 activity was significant compared with vehicle control (P ≤ 0.05), with a TGI of 78%. In this model, combining BVD-523 with dabrafenib resulted in a TGI of 76% (P ≤ 0.05); therefore, further benefit was not gained for the combination compared with single-agent BVD-523 in this particular model of BRAF-acquired resistance. Whole-exome sequencing was performed on both the patient biopsy and the PDX model. A number of alterations with unknown significance were identified in addition to the known driver mutation PIK3CA-H1047L. We speculate that the presence of this mutation may actually attenuate response to BVD-523, as stasis rather than regression was observed.

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

BVD-523 in vivo activity in xenograft derived from a vemurafenib-relapsed patient. Mean tumor volume (±SEM) is shown for BVD-523 100 mg/kg twice daily (BID) alone, dabrafenib 50 mg/kg twice daily alone, and BVD-523 100 mg/kg twice daily plus dabrafenib 50 mg/kg twice daily.

Discussion

BVD-523 is a potent, highly selective, reversible, small-molecule ATP-competitive inhibitor of ERK1/2 with activity in in vitro and in vivo cancer models. In vitro, BVD-523 demonstrated potent inhibition against several human tumor cell lines, particularly those harboring activating mutations in the MAPK signaling pathway, consistent with its mechanism of action. BVD-523 elicited changes in downstream target and effector proteins, including inhibition of direct substrate of ERK1/2, pRSK, and total DUSP6 protein levels (transcriptional target of ERK1/2). These findings are in line with those of previous studies of other ERK1/2 inhibitors, which demonstrated effective suppression of pRSK with ERK1/2 inhibition (26, 27). Interestingly, BVD-523 treatment resulted in a marked increase in ERK1/2 phosphorylation in vitro and in vivo. Similar to our findings, an increase in pERK1/2 has been reported with the ERK1/2 inhibitor Vx11e; conversely, pERK1/2 increases are not observed with SCH772984 (26). Although differences in pERK1/2 levels were observed among the various ERK1/2 inhibitors tested, downstream effectors (i.e., pRSK1 and total DUSP6) were similarly inhibited. These findings suggest quantifying ERK1/2 target substrates, such as pRSK1, may serve as reliable pharmacodynamic biomarkers for BVD-523–mediated inhibition of ERK1/2 activity. The differential effect of BVD-523 and SCH772984 upon the levels of pERK is striking. The significance of this to efficacy and tolerability in the clinic remains to be determined.

While BRAF (dabrafenib, vemurafenib) and MEK (trametinib, cobimetinib) inhibitors validate the MAPK pathway as a therapeutic target, particularly in patients with BRAFV600 mutations, the antitumor response is limited by the emergence of acquired resistance and subsequent disease progression (38). Reactivation of the ERK1/2 pathway is one common consequence of acquired resistance mechanism. When introduced into the BRAFV600E-mutant colorectal cell line RKO, MEKQ56P conferred resistance to MEK and BRAF inhibition. In contrast, BVD-523 retained its potent inhibitory activity in the engineered MEKQ56P cell line, indicating that ERK1/2 inhibition is effective in the setting of upstream activating alterations, which can arise in response to BRAF/MEK treatment. As further evidence of a role for BVD-523 in the context of acquired resistance, efficacy of BVD-523 was evident in a xenograft model derived from a patient whose disease progressed on vemurafenib; the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib was not effective in this model. These data support a role for targeting ERK1/2 in the setting of BRAF/MEK resistance, and complement previously published findings (26, 27).

To further characterize resistance to inhibitors of the MAPK pathway, the emergence of resistance to BVD-523 itself was investigated. We found that single-agent treatment of cancer cells with BVD-523 was durable, and it was more challenging to develop resistance against BVD-523 than other agents targeting upstream MAPK signaling components (i.e., dabrafenib, trametinib). This may suggest that acquiring resistance to ERK1/2-targeting agents is harder to achieve than acquiring resistance to BRAF or MEK therapy. However, in vitro studies with other ERK1/2 inhibitors have identified specific mutants in ERK1/2 that drive resistance (39, 40); these specific mutations have yet to be identified in clinical samples from ERK1/2 inhibitor–relapsed patients.

The potential clinical benefit of ERK1/2 inhibition with BVD-523 extends beyond the setting of BRAF/MEK therapy–resistant patients. As ERK1/2 is a downstream master node within this MAPK pathway, its inhibition is attractive in numerous cancer settings where tumor growth depends on MAPK signaling. Approximately 30% of all cancers harbor RAS mutations; therefore, targeting downstream ERK1/2 with BVD-523 is a rational treatment approach for these cancers. Furthermore, results from a study by Hayes and colleagues indicate that prolonged ERK1/2 inhibition in KRAS-mutant pancreatic cancer is associated with senescent-like growth suppression (41). However, a combination approach may be required for maximal and durable attenuation of MAPK signaling in the setting of RAS mutations. For example, MEK inhibition in KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer cell results in an adaptive response of ErbB family activation, which dampens the response to MEK inhibition (42). Similar context-specific adaptive responses may occur following ERK1/2 inhibition with BVD-523. The optimal treatment combinations for various genetic profiles and cancer histologies are the subject of ongoing research. In addition to BRAF and RAS mutations, other alterations which drive MAPK are emerging. For example, novel RAF fusions and atypical (non-V600) BRAF mutations which promote RAF dimerization activate the MAPK pathway (43). BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib which inhibit BRAFV600-mutant monomer proteins have been shown to be inactive in atypical RAF alterations which drive MAPK signaling in a dimerization-dependent manner (43). However, treatment with BVD-523 to target downstream ERK1/2 in these tumors may be a novel approach to addressing this unmet medical need; indeed patients harboring such atypical BRAF alterations are included in an ongoing clinical trial of BVD-523 (NCT01781429).

In the setting of BRAFV600-mutant melanoma tumors, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition exemplifies how agents targeting different nodes of the same pathway can improve treatment response and duration. Our combination studies in BRAFV600E-mutant xenografts of human melanoma cell line A375 provide support for combination therapy with BVD-523 and BRAF inhibitors. The combination demonstrated superior benefit relative to single-agent treatments, including results consistent with curative responses. The clinical efficacy and tolerability of combined BRAF/BVD-523 therapy remains to be determined. It would not be unreasonable to expect that a BRAF/BVD-523 combination will at least be comparable in efficacy to a targeted BRAF/MEK combination. Furthermore, the in vitro observation that acquired resistance to BVD-523 is more challenging to achieve compared with other MAPK pathway inhibitors suggests that the BRAF/BVD-523 combination has the potential to provide a more durable response.

It would be remiss to not highlight that significant progress has also been made using immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma. The FDA has approved various immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of advanced melanoma, including the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 targeted agent ipilimumab, and the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab. Emerging data suggest MEK inhibitors may have benefit in combination with anti-PD-L1 therapy atezolizumab (44). Combining BVD-523 with such immunotherapies is an attractive therapeutic option; further investigation is warranted to explore dosing schedules and to assess whether synergistic response can be achieved.

On the basis of the preclinical data, BVD-523 may hold promise for treatment of patients with malignancies dependent on MAPK signaling, including those whose tumors have acquired resistance to other treatments. Phase I clinical studies of BVD-523 are ongoing (NCT01781429, NCT02296242, and NCT02608229).

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

U.A. Germann has ownership interest (including patents) in Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. J.J. Roix is an associate at BioMed Valley Discoveries. D.A. Sorrell has ownership interest (including patents) in Horizon Discovery. M. Fitzgibbon is a senior research scientist and has ownership interest (including patents) in Vertex Pharmaceuticals. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: U.A. Germann, W. Markland, R.R. Hoover, A.M. Aronov, J.J. Roix, M. Hale, R. Samadani, G. DeCrescenzo, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Development of methodology: B.F. Furey, W. Markland, R.R. Hoover, J.J. Roix, D.A. Sorrell, R. Samadani, G. DeCrescenzo, M. Namchuk, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): B.F. Furey, W. Markland, R.R. Hoover, D.M. Boucher, D.A. Sorrell, M. Fitzgibbon, P. Shapiro, M.J. Wick, R. Samadani, K. Meshaw, C.M. Emery, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): U.A. Germann, B.F. Furey, W. Markland, R.R. Hoover, J.J. Roix, D.M. Boucher, D.A. Sorrell, P. Shapiro, R. Samadani, A. Groover, G. DeCrescenzo, M. Namchuk, C.M. Emery, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: U.A. Germann, B.F. Furey, W. Markland, A.M. Aronov, J.J. Roix, M. Hale, D.M. Boucher, D.A. Sorrell, G. Martinez-Botella, M.J. Wick, R. Samadani, A. Groover, G. DeCrescenzo, M. Namchuk, C.M. Emery, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J.J. Roix, M. Fitzgibbon, A. Groover, C.M. Emery, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Study supervision: U.A. Germann, J.J. Roix, D.A. Sorrell, M. Namchuk, C.M. Emery, S. Saha, D.J. Welsch

Other (his group while at Vertex designed and made the compound in the study and holds patents on the chemical matter): M. Hale

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Corinne Ramos and Nicholas Hoke for performing the large-scale reverse phase protein array. They also thank Sharon Maguire and Paul A. Russell for assay support and Amy Smith and Mark Stockdale for the construction of the MEK1Q56P cell line.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received May 19, 2017.
  • Revision received August 2, 2017.
  • Accepted August 23, 2017.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kanda M,
    2. Matthaei H,
    3. Wu J,
    4. Hong SM,
    5. Yu J,
    6. Borges M,
    7. et al.
    Presence of somatic mutations in most early-stage pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2012;142:730–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Arrington AK,
    2. Heinrich EL,
    3. Lee W,
    4. Duldulao M,
    5. Patel S,
    6. Sanchez J,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic and predictive roles of KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2012;13:12153–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hall RD,
    2. Kudchadkar RR
    . BRAF mutations: signaling, epidemiology, and clinical experience in multiple malignancies. Cancer Control 2014;21:221–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ojesina AI,
    2. Lichtenstein L,
    3. Freeman SS,
    4. Pedamallu CS,
    5. Imaz-Rosshandler I,
    6. Pugh TJ,
    7. et al.
    Landscape of genomic alterations in cervical carcinomas. Nature 2014;506:371–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Arcila ME,
    2. Drilon A,
    3. Sylvester BE,
    4. Lovly CM,
    5. Borsu L,
    6. Reva B,
    7. et al.
    MAP2K1 (MEK1) mutations define a distinct subset of lung adenocarcinoma associated with smoking. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:1935–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Groenendijk FH,
    2. Bernards R
    . Drug resistance to targeted therapies: deja vu all over again. Mol Oncol 2014;8:1067–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chapman PB,
    2. Hauschild A,
    3. Robert C,
    4. Haanen JB,
    5. Ascierto P,
    6. Larkin J,
    7. et al.
    Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2507–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hauschild A,
    2. Grob JJ,
    3. Demidov LV,
    4. Jouary T,
    5. Gutzmer R,
    6. Millward M,
    7. et al.
    Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:358–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Queirolo P,
    2. Picasso V,
    3. Spagnolo F
    . Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Cancer Treat Rev 2015;41:519–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Massey PR,
    2. Prasad V,
    3. Figg WD,
    4. Fojo T
    . Multiplying therapies and reducing toxicity in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Biol Ther 2015;16:1014–8.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Robert C,
    2. Karaszewska B,
    3. Schachter J,
    4. Rutkowski P,
    5. Mackiewicz A,
    6. Stroiakovski D,
    7. et al.
    Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med 2015;372:30–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Long GV,
    2. Stroyakovskiy D,
    3. Gogas H,
    4. Levchenko E,
    5. de Braud F,
    6. Larkin J,
    7. et al.
    Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:444–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Larkin J,
    2. Ascierto PA,
    3. Dreno B,
    4. Atkinson V,
    5. Liszkay G,
    6. Maio M,
    7. et al.
    Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1867–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Long GV,
    2. Stroyakovskiy D,
    3. Gogas H,
    4. Levchenko E,
    5. de Braud F,
    6. Larkin J,
    7. et al.
    Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1877–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Flaherty KT,
    2. Infante JR,
    3. Daud A,
    4. Gonzalez R,
    5. Kefford RF,
    6. Sosman J,
    7. et al.
    Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1694–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Poulikakos PI,
    2. Persaud Y,
    3. Janakiraman M,
    4. Kong X,
    5. Ng C,
    6. Moriceau G,
    7. et al.
    RAF inhibitor resistance is mediated by dimerization of aberrantly spliced BRAF(V600E). Nature 2011;480:387–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Corcoran RB,
    2. Dias-Santagata D,
    3. Bergethon K,
    4. Iafrate AJ,
    5. Settleman J,
    6. Engelman JA
    . BRAF gene amplification can promote acquired resistance to MEK inhibitors in cancer cells harboring the BRAF V600E mutation. Sci Signal 2010;3:ra84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wagle N,
    2. Emery C,
    3. Berger MF,
    4. Davis MJ,
    5. Sawyer A,
    6. Pochanard P,
    7. et al.
    Dissecting therapeutic resistance to RAF inhibition in melanoma by tumor genomic profiling. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3085–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Nazarian R,
    2. Shi H,
    3. Wang Q,
    4. Kong X,
    5. Koya RC,
    6. Lee H,
    7. et al.
    Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation. Nature 2010;468:973–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Shi H,
    2. Hugo W,
    3. Kong X,
    4. Hong A,
    5. Koya RC,
    6. Moriceau G,
    7. et al.
    Acquired resistance and clonal evolution in melanoma during BRAF inhibitor therapy. Cancer Discov 2014;4:80–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Wagle N,
    2. Van Allen EM,
    3. Treacy DJ,
    4. Frederick DT,
    5. Cooper ZA,
    6. Taylor-Weiner A,
    7. et al.
    MAP kinase pathway alterations in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients with acquired resistance to combined RAF/MEK inhibition. Cancer Discov 2014;4:61–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Long GV,
    2. Fung C,
    3. Menzies AM,
    4. Pupo GM,
    5. Carlino MS,
    6. Hyman J,
    7. et al.
    Increased MAPK reactivation in early resistance to dabrafenib/trametinib combination therapy of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Nat Commun 2014;5:5694.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Rizos H,
    2. Menzies AM,
    3. Pupo GM,
    4. Carlino MS,
    5. Fung C,
    6. Hyman J,
    7. et al.
    BRAF inhibitor resistance mechanisms in metastatic melanoma: spectrum and clinical impact. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:1965–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Moriceau G,
    2. Hugo W,
    3. Hong A,
    4. Shi H,
    5. Kong X,
    6. Yu CC,
    7. et al.
    Tunable-combinatorial mechanisms of acquired resistance limit the efficacy of BRAF/MEK cotargeting but result in melanoma drug addiction. Cancer Cell 2015;27:240–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Johannessen CM,
    2. Johnson LA,
    3. Piccioni F,
    4. Townes A,
    5. Frederick DT,
    6. Donahue MK,
    7. et al.
    A melanocyte lineage program confers resistance to MAP kinase pathway inhibition. Nature 2013;504:138–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Morris EJ,
    2. Jha S,
    3. Restaino CR,
    4. Dayananth P,
    5. Zhu H,
    6. Cooper A,
    7. et al.
    Discovery of a novel ERK inhibitor with activity in models of acquired resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2013;3:742–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hatzivassiliou G,
    2. Liu B,
    3. O'Brien C,
    4. Spoerke JM,
    5. Hoeflich KP,
    6. Haverty PM,
    7. et al.
    ERK inhibition overcomes acquired resistance to MEK inhibitors. Mol Cancer Ther 2012;11:1143–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Carlino MS,
    2. Long GV,
    3. Kefford RF,
    4. Rizos H
    . Targeting oncogenic BRAF and aberrant MAPK activation in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;96:385–98.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Aronov AM,
    2. Tang Q,
    3. Martinez-Botella G,
    4. Bemis GW,
    5. Cao J,
    6. Chen G,
    7. et al.
    Structure-guided design of potent and selective pyrimidylpyrrole inhibitors of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) using conformational control. J Med Chem 2009;52:6362–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rudolph J,
    2. Xiao Y,
    3. Pardi A,
    4. Ahn NG
    . Slow inhibition and conformation selective properties of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 inhibitors. Biochemistry 2015;54:22–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Aronov AM,
    2. Baker C,
    3. Bemis GW,
    4. Cao J,
    5. Chen G,
    6. Ford PJ,
    7. et al.
    Flipped out: structure-guided design of selective pyrazolylpyrrole ERK inhibitors. J Med Chem 2007;50:1280–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Fedorov O,
    2. Niesen FH,
    3. Knapp S
    . Kinase inhibitor selectivity profiling using differential scanning fluorimetry. Methods Mol Biol 2012;795:109–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wainstein E,
    2. Seger R
    . The dynamic subcellular localization of ERK: mechanisms of translocation and role in various organelles. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2016;39:15–20.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Trunzer K,
    2. Pavlick AC,
    3. Schuchter L,
    4. Gonzalez R,
    5. McArthur GA,
    6. Hutson TE,
    7. et al.
    Pharmacodynamic effects and mechanisms of resistance to vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1767–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Emery CM,
    2. Vijayendran KG,
    3. Zipser MC,
    4. Sawyer AM,
    5. Niu L,
    6. Kim JJ,
    7. et al.
    MEK1 mutations confer resistance to MEK and B-RAF inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:20411–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Johnson DB,
    2. Menzies AM,
    3. Zimmer L,
    4. Eroglu Z,
    5. Ye F,
    6. Zhao S,
    7. et al.
    Acquired BRAF inhibitor resistance: a multicenter meta-analysis of the spectrum and frequencies, clinical behaviour, and phenotypic associations of resistance mechanisms. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:2792–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Yeh TC,
    2. Marsh V,
    3. Bernat BA,
    4. Ballard J,
    5. Colwell H,
    6. Evans RJ,
    7. et al.
    Biological characterization of ARRY-142886 (AZD6244), a potent, highly selective mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:1576–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Corcoran RB,
    2. Settleman J,
    3. Engelman JA
    . Potential therapeutic strategies to overcome acquired resistance to BRAF or MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutant cancers. Oncotarget 2011;2:336–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Jha S,
    2. Morris EJ,
    3. Hruza A,
    4. Mansueto MS,
    5. Schroeder GK,
    6. Arbanas J,
    7. et al.
    Dissecting therapeutic resistance to ERK inhibition. Mol Cancer Ther 2016;15:548–59.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Goetz EM,
    2. Ghandi M,
    3. Treacy DJ,
    4. Wagle N,
    5. Garraway LA
    . ERK mutations confer resistance to mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors. Cancer Res 2014;74:7079–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Hayes TK,
    2. Neel NF,
    3. Hu C,
    4. Gautam P,
    5. Chenard M,
    6. Long B,
    7. et al.
    Long-term ERK inhibition in KRAS-mutant pancreatic cancer is associated with MYC degradation and senescence-like growth suppression. Cancer Cell 2016;29:75–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Sun C,
    2. Hobor S,
    3. Bertotti A,
    4. Zecchin D,
    5. Huang S,
    6. Galimi F,
    7. et al.
    Intrinsic resistance to MEK inhibition in KRAS mutant lung and colon cancer through transcriptional induction of ERBB3. Cell Rep 2014;7:86–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Yao Z,
    2. Torres NM,
    3. Tao A,
    4. Gao Y,
    5. Luo L,
    6. Li Q,
    7. et al.
    BRAF mutants evade ERK-dependent feedback by different mechanisms that determine their sensitivity to pharmacologic inhibition. Cancer Cell 2015;28:370–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Miller WH,
    2. Kim TM,
    3. Lee CB,
    4. Flaherty KT,
    5. Reddy S,
    6. Jamal R,
    7. et al.
    Atezolizumab (A) + cobimetinib (C) in metastatic melanoma (mel): updated safety and clinical activity. J Clin Oncol 35:15s, 2017 (suppl; abstr 3057).
View Abstract
Back to top
View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Targeting the MAPK Signaling Pathway in Cancer: Promising Preclinical Activity with the Novel Selective ERK1/2 Inhibitor BVD-523 (Ulixertinib)
Ursula A. Germann, Brinley F. Furey, William Markland, Russell R. Hoover, Alex M. Aronov, Jeffrey J. Roix, Michael Hale, Diane M. Boucher, David A. Sorrell, Gabriel Martinez-Botella, Matthew Fitzgibbon, Paul Shapiro, Michael J. Wick, Ramin Samadani, Kathryn Meshaw, Anna Groover, Gary DeCrescenzo, Mark Namchuk, Caroline M. Emery, Saurabh Saha and Dean J. Welsch
Mol Cancer Ther November 1 2017 (16) (11) 2351-2363; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0456
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement