Clues Found on How Melanoma Resists Treatments

The insights could lead to longer-lasting therapies for the deadliest of skin cancers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Bill Berkrot

(Reuters) - Researchers believe they have discovered a mechanism by which tumors eventually evade effective combination treatments for melanoma, providing clues that could lead to longer-lasting therapies for the deadliest of skin cancers.

The two-year study, led by Dr. Roger Lo of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, looked at tumor samples from 15 melanoma patients prior to therapy that combined a BRAF inhibitor with an MEK inhibitor and after they developed resistance to the drugs.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Previous research found that adding an MEK drug to a BRAF drug significantly lengthened the time before the disease began to worsen. That led to GlaxoSmithKline's Tafinlar and Mekinist combination, and the combination of Roche's Zelboraf with the experimental Exelixis drug cobimetinib awaiting U.S. approval.

The so-called targeted therapies are designed to turn off specific molecular pathways associated with tumor growth. The approach can have dramatic effects, until tumor cells develop resistance.

"The resistance is basically a matter of time, but if we figure out the strategies by which the resistance happens we can propose new ways to suppress these mechanisms," Lo said in a telephone interview.

"If we can understand better what type of (genetic) mutations occur in melanoma ... we can design better and better drugs to suppress these. Either new drugs, better combinations of drugs or better regimens of drugs," Lo said.

By studying genetic material from tumors that developed resistance to the combination therapy, Lo's team found highly unusual changes in key cancer genes.

"What we found was genetic alterations were much more exaggerated," Lo said.

"Most of the time when a gene is increased for the benefit of cancer, usually you see four copies, 10 copies," Lo said. "Here, we're finding 80 or 100 copies.

"This is the result of a severe evolutionary pressure imposed on the cancer by the drugs. It's almost a signature of resistance to the combo drug."

Along with the findings, published on Thursday in the journal Cancer Cell, Lo's group proposed potential ways of fighting the resistance, including intermittent therapy that would take a break from exposing the tumor to the drugs.

"Other ideas includes inhibitors that would inhibit certain types of signaling ... that specifically target mechanisms of resistance," Lo said.

"We need to study iterative resistance to therapies so we can construct better and better therapies to push the curve to increased survival."

 

 

(Editing by Bernadette Baum)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe