Next Article in Journal
Challenges with Methods for Detecting and Studying the Transcription Factor Nuclear Factor Kappa B (NF-κB) in the Central Nervous System
Next Article in Special Issue
Epigenetic Regulation in Melanoma: Facts and Hopes
Previous Article in Journal
Natural Killer Cells and T Cells in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Viral Hepatitis: Current Status and Perspectives for Future Immunotherapeutic Approaches
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 10
Issue 6
10.3390/cells10061334
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review

by
Mattia Garutti
1,*,
Giada Targato
2,
Silvia Buriolla
2,
Lorenza Palmero
1,2,
Alessandro Marco Minisini
2 and
Fabio Puglisi
1,2
1
CRO Aviano National Cancer Institute IRCCS, 33081 Aviano, Italy
2
Department of Medicine (DAME), University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2021, 10(6), 1334; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10061334
Submission received: 2 May 2021 / Revised: 20 May 2021 / Accepted: 25 May 2021 / Published: 28 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Understanding Melanoma Pathogenesis: Emerging Molecular Pathways and Targets in Melanoma Progression)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Historically, metastatic melanoma was considered a highly lethal disease. However, recent advances in drug development have allowed a significative improvement in prognosis. In particular, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD1 antibodies have completely revolutionized the management of this disease. Nonetheless, not all patients derive a benefit or a durable benefit from these therapies. To overtake this challenges, new clinically active compounds are being tested in the context of clinical trials. CDK4/6 inhibitors are drugs already available in clinical practice and preliminary evidence showed a promising activity also in melanoma. Herein we review the available literature to depict a comprehensive landscape about CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. We present the molecular and genetic background that might justify the usage of these drugs, the preclinical evidence, the clinical available data, and the most promising ongoing clinical trials.

1. Introduction

Historically, metastatic melanoma was considered a highly lethal disease [1]. However, recent advances in drug development have allowed a significative improvement in the prognosis of patients with melanoma. In particular, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD1 antibodies have entirely revolutionized the management of this disease [2]. Despite their relevant efficacies, several unmet clinical needs still exist. For example, the response rate of anti-PD1 therapy, which is nearly 40%, is still unsatisfactory [2,3]; on the other hand, BRAF/MEK inhibitors are often unable to control the disease for very long periods because of the development of resistance [4,5]. To overtake this challenges, new clinically active compounds are highly needed.
CDK4 pathway is a frequently altered signaling in melanomas [6]. Considering the current clinical availability of CDK4/6 inhibitors, increasing interest has emerged in CDK4/6 inhibition in melanoma. Indeed, several clinical trials are testing the efficacy of these compounds, especially as part of a multidrug regimen.
Herein we review the available literature to depict a comprehensive landscape about CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. We present the molecular and genetic background that might justify using these drugs, the preclinical evidence, the clinical available data, and the most promising ongoing clinical trials.

2. CDK4/6 Pathway

The cell division cycle (CDC) is the result of the dynamic balance between pro-mitotic and pro-apoptotic/arrest signals, which interplay in a regulatory network [7,8].
Cell progression through the CDC phases requires overcoming critical points, such as the restriction point (R), the gatekeeper of the G1-S transition, and the cell checkpoints [9]. These transitions are mainly driven by the sequential activation of distinct heterodimeric complexes, each constituted by the association of a cyclin protein and a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK), with regulatory and catalytic functions, respectively [10].
Every CDC phase is specifically regulated by a cyclin/CDK complex, and the progression from G1 to S phase is triggered by the cyclin-D-CDK4/6 interaction (Figure 1) [11].
Cyclin D protein, encoded by the CCDN1 gene, is involved in several intracellular pathways, both dependent and independent on CDK4/6, such as promoting cellular proliferation and modulation of mitochondrial activities, DNA damage repair, and cell migration [12].
During the CDC the levels and the sub-cellular distribution of cyclin D change with an oscillatory behavior [13], in response to proliferative and mitogenic stimuli; following the binding of growth factors to their tyrosine kinase receptors (e.g., IGFR, c-kit, FGFR), the activated RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK cascade induces the transcription of CCDN1 and consequently the increase in cyclin D expression in the early G1 phase [9,12]. After the heterodimerization of cyclin D with CDK4/6, the activated complex moves to the nucleus and, co-operating with cyclin-E/CDK2, induces the hyperphosphorylation and the consequent impairment of three proteins, all with growth suppressive properties: the tumor suppressor Retinoblastoma protein (RB), the retinoblastoma-like protein 1 (p107) and the retinoblastoma-like protein 2 (p130) [14]. As a result, the E2F transcription factor dissociates from RB and can exert its activity, priming the transcription of genes required for DNA replication and promoting the progression of the cell cycle to the S phase.
To avoid an aberrant cellular proliferation, this process is inhibited by the INK4 (including p16ink4A, p15ink4B, p18ink4C, p19ink4D), the Cip, and the Kip (p21CIP1 and p27KIP1) family proteins [15]. The INK4 proteins specifically bind to the CDK4/6 units and prevent the assembly of the cyclin-D-CDK4/6 complex while p21CIP1 and p27KIP1 interact both with the cyclins and the CDKs units, stabilizing them. As a result of this inhibition, the cell stops at the G1-S transition phase.
Additional inhibitory control is provided by the negative feedback loop promoted by the interaction between p16ink4A and RB. Physiologically, p16ink4A is suppressed by the activated (hypophosphorylated) form of RB; accordingly, the hyperphosphorylation of RB mediated by CDK4/6 relieves p16ink4A from the suppression.
In addition to the RB-dependent mechanism (defined as canonical pathway), the complex cyclin-D-CDK4/6 directly regulates the cell-cycle progression through the modulation of FOXM1, MYC, and SMAD3 expression respectively involved in senescence, apoptosis, and G1-S transition.

3. CDK4/6 Pathway Dysregulation in Melanoma

Dysregulation of the p16ink4A-cyclin D-CDK4/6-RB pathway is common in many cancer types [16] and is recognized in up to 90% of melanomas, with alterations occurring in many nodes of this axis [6,17,18].
These changes include loss or inactivation of CDKN2A (encoding for p16), aberration or overexpression of CCND1, and mutation or amplification of CDK4/6 [19,20]. These aberrations are responsible for the downregulation of the inhibitory control system or the hyperactivation of the pro-mitotic signaling pathways.
CDKN2A alterations, comprehensive of deletion, mutation, or promoter methylation, lead to loss of expression of p16 with lack of control on CDK4/6-mediated cell proliferation. A higher prevalence of these modifications has been observed in melanoma tissues compared to benign nevi [21], suggesting their pivotal role in melanoma genesis. Moreover, germline CDKN2A mutations have been shown to increase the susceptibility to develop melanomas [22,23,24].
CDK4 mutations in arginine residue 24 (CDK4R24C) are currently reported in melanoma patients with a familial predisposition and prevent the binding of p16 to the catalytic subunit, triggering constitutive activation of the kinase [22], and conferring a biological behavior similar to p16 loss, as proved by pre-clinical models [25,26].
A critical role in the oncogenic evolution of the p16ink4A-cyclin D-CDK4/6-RB pathway is played by CCND1, a node where many upstream stimuli converge [27].
The prevalence of the amplification of CCND1 is controversial [28,29] and the frequency differs among melanoma types, with an established higher detection rate in acral melanoma [30,31,32]. Gene copy numbers and amplification levels are frequently associated with the expression of cyclin D, but, in contrast, the overexpression of the cyclin D does not necessarily follow gene expression alterations, suggesting the influx of other pathways [29]. Cyclin D may be upregulated in response to BRAF and PI3K mutations, which lead to the increase in CCND1 gene transcription and mRNA translation, respectively [33].
Intriguingly, as shown in 2005 by Curtin et al. [34], different types of melanomas present distinct aberrations [35], suggesting a strong link between the mechanism of melanoma development/progression, biological behavior, and response to target therapy.
Additionally, ultraviolet radiations doubly intertwine with the p16ink4A-cyclin D-CDK4/6-RB pathway. Pre-clinical evidence showed that UV light could induce the p16ink4A expression for the UV-lesions repairment [36,37] and both enhance melanomagenesis by promoting p16 loss or CDK6 amplification [38,39].

4. Pharmacology of CDK4/6 Inhibitors

Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib are the third-generation of orally administered CDK4/6 inhibitors. Through a competitive and reversible bound to the ATP pocket of the inactive kinase, that strongly inhibits both CDK4 and CDK6 preventing the RB hyperphosphorylation and thus causing cell cycle arrest (Table 1) [40]. These drugs show little or absent suppression of other CDK family members: this results in a reduction of adverse events associated with broad-spectrum CDK blockade, as observed with first- and second-generation CDK inhibitors [41].
While Palbociclib inhibition activity is similar for CDK4 and CDK6, Ribociclib and Abemaciclib are more selective on CDK4 than CDK6. Abemaciclib showed higher inhibitor potency among these drugs, especially on CDK4 [40,45]. Furthermore, it has shown in vitro activity against other cyclin-dependent kinases as CDK1, CDK2, CDK7, and particularly CDK9, but also against other pathways involved in cellular proliferation and survivorship [46]. These differences in selectivity and CDK inhibition ratio may be responsible for a different safety profile and dose schedules, assuming clinical relevance [19]. These three agents are associated with hematological and gastrointestinal adverse events because of cell cycle inhibition in highly proliferative tissues, like bone marrow and gastrointestinal mucosa. In particular, targeting CDK6 has been associated with alterations in hematopoiesis due to a cytostatic effect [19]. Therefore, while Palbociclib and Ribociclib are frequently responsible for leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia, Abemaciclib, has higher selectivity for CDK4, results in less hematological toxicity and is mainly related to gastrointestinal disorders, like nausea and diarrhea, potentially mediated by CDK9 inhibition [47]. Other concerning side effects are an increased risk of thromboembolism and Ribociclib has been associated with prolonged QT interval and hepatotoxicity [48,49].
These three different CDK4/6 inhibitors show a similar pharmacokinetic profile. However, after oral administration, Ribociclib is more rapidly absorbed compared to Abemaciclib and Palbociclib, the last showing a longer maximum concentration time (Tmax) [50,51]. Palbociclib absorption is influenced by food intake and gastric pH, with lower drug concentration levels observed in patients assuming Palbociclib in fasting condition or in association with proton pump inhibitors [45]. On the contrary, Ribociclib and Abemaciclib absorption are not significantly influenced by food intake, though high fat and caloric meals slightly increase Abemaciclib plasma concentration [52]. Compared to other CDK 4/6 inhibitors, Abemaciclib shows a shorter mean half-life (T1/2), and thus more frequent dosing is required to maintain stable plasma levels capable of sustaining cell cycle arrest [53].
Palbociclib and Ribociclib present a higher distribution volume due to their moderate binding to human plasma proteins [45]. At the same time, Abemaciclib shows greater lipophilicity and penetrates more efficiently through the blood-brain barrier, as observed in some clinical and preclinical studies [53,54]. In addition, Palbociclib and Ribociclib are both substrates of breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP; ABCG2) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp; ABCB1), two efflux transporter proteins responsible for cerebrospinal fluid drugs removal [54].
These drugs undergo hepatic metabolism primarily mediated by CYP3A4. Thus, concomitant use of potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or the presence of specific genetic polymorphisms can lead to higher CDK4/6 inhibitors blood levels with increased risk of toxicity with clinical practice impact [54].

5. Preclinical Activity of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma

5.1. CDK4/6 Inhibitors as Single Agents

Since the CDK4/6 pathway is frequently dysregulated in melanoma, it could be anticipated that CDK4/6 inhibitors have a high degree of activity against this disease. Counterintuitively, clinical data have documented a limited role of these agents when used alone, suggesting an intrinsic resistance of melanoma to CDK4/6 inhibitors (see below). Although no definitive conclusions exist regarding the exact resistance mechanisms, some preclinical studies have shed light on this topic.

Resistance Mechanisms to CDK4/6 Inhibitors

Several mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors have been suggested. One putative mechanism of resistance resides in the PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling cascade. For example, in the elegant study of Hayes et al., through a gene-expression- and a gene-silencing-system, it was shown that receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK)-PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway activity impairs sensitivity of melanoma cells to Palbociclib [55]. Similarly, Yoshida et al. demonstrated an increased mTOR signaling drives resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors [56]. Of note, both the loss of RB and the overexpression of FXR1 seem to cause an increase of SLC36A1 levels, which, in turn, promote mTOR signaling.
Another putative mechanism of resistance stems from the reduced activity of p21 [57]. In detail, upon treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors, melanoma cells increase the levels of cyclin D1, which is a master regulator of cell cycle progression. Cyclin D1, in turn, sequesters p21 and other CDK-inhibitors (e.g., p27). Since p53 transcriptionally regulates p21, Vilgem et al. tried to increase p21 levels through inhibition of MDM2, which is a p53 degrader. Indeed, the coadministration of MDM2 inhibitors and CDK4/6 inhibitors leads to tumor regression [57]. The antagonistic role of MDM2 against CDK4/6 inhibitors was also confirmed by others [58]. Similarly, also the p53-degraders MDM4 has shown an antagonistic role against CDK4/6 inhibitors [59].
Collectively, these data suggest that combining mTOR inhibitors and/or MDM2/MDM4 inhibitors might overcome the intrinsic resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. All these drugs are already clinically available. In addition, data from other cancer types suggest several more putative mechanisms of resistance [60]: CDK4/6 overexpression [61], p16 amplification [62,63], upregulation of FGFR pathway [64,65], alteration of Hippo pathway [66], activation of CDK2 [67,68], autophagy [69], and epigenetic alterations [70,71].

5.2. CDK4/6 Inhibitors Combined with Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has deeply changed the way to treat melanoma. Indeed, it could achieve very long-term disease control or even disease remission [2]. However, only a fraction (35–60%) of patients respond to this therapy, and nearly 40% of them experienced resistance to immunotherapy within three years [2,3]. There is a mounting interest in compounds that enhance efficacy or that reduce resistance to immunotherapy. CDK4/6 inhibitors are a promising drug class that showed an interesting synergistic activity with immunotherapy.
Zhang et al. [72] showed that CDK4/6 inhibition could stimulate PD-L1 expression, which, in turn, impairs antitumor immunity and reduces tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. However, the coadministration of a CDK4/6 inhibitor with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy enhanced tumor regression and increased overall survival in mouse cancer models. Similarly, Yu et al. [73] reported that CDK4 pathway aberrations confer an intrinsic resistance to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, and these results were validated in a cohort of 85 patients with melanoma. In addition, they showed an enhanced efficacy from the combination of an anti-PD-1 antibody with Palbociclib compared to monotherapies. Coherently, Jerby-Arnon et al. demonstrated in an elegant way the pro-immunogenic potential of CDK4/6 inhibitors. In particular, through the single-cell RNA sequencing from 33 melanomas, it was shown that cold neoplastic niches were characterized by a resistant transcriptomic profile linked with T-cell exclusion and immune evasion. This program, which predicts reduced clinical response to immunotherapy, could be reverted by CDK4/6 inhibition [74].
From a mechanistic point of view, several putative pro-inflammatory activities of CDK4/6 inhibitors have been described. Among them, three could be particularly relevant in melanoma. First, CDK4/6 inhibitors have been shown to increase Type III interferon production and cancer antigen presentation [75,76]. Second, CDK4/6 inhibitors could suppress regulatory T-cell proliferation, indirectly enhancing anticancer immune surveillance [75]. Third, CDK4/6 inhibitors significantly increase T-cell activation and functions, directly enhancing anticancer immune functions [77].
Comprehensively, preclinical data suggest a promising synergistic potential from CDK4/6 inhibitors and immunotherapy. Confirmatory clinical trials are ongoing (see below).

5.3. CDK4/6 Inhibitors Combined with BRAF/MEK Inhibitors

Nearly 50% of melanomas have a mutation in the BRAF gene [78], and BRAF inhibitors have shown tremendous efficacy in this subgroup of patients [79]. However, resistance to BRAF inhibition arises quickly [79]. In order to delay cancer progression, the combination of BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors has been shown to increase response rate and duration of response [4,5]. Nevertheless, the development of acquired resistance to this therapy is a common problem that often stems from the reactivation of the MAPK pathway, which could stimulate CDK4/6 signaling [80]. Indeed, preclinical evidence supports the role of combined inhibition of RAF/MEK and CDK4/6 [81,82]. From a molecular point of view, several mechanisms of synergism from combined BRAF/MEK- and CDK4/6-inhibition have been proposed.
Yoshida et al. showed that prolonged inhibition of CDK4/6 signaling could overcome the resistance to BRAF-inhibitors through the induction of a state of senescence [83]. Since senescence was previously linked to increased cancer clearance by the immune system [84], Teh et al. have evaluated a possible immune-stimulating effect of combined CDK4/6-MEK-inhibitors. Indeed, they found that the combination increases tumor immunogenicity, intra-tumoral CD8 T-cell recruitment, and the expression of CD137L, a T-cell costimulatory molecule on immune cells [85].
Another mechanism that could be exploited by the combination of CDK4/6- with BRAF/MEK-inhibitors is the RB/cyclin D1 axis. In particular, Abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, can impair cell cycle progression through partial inhibition of RB phosphorylation. However, as a compensatory effect, there is an increase in cyclin D1 levels. Combined treatment with LY3009120 (a pan-RAF inhibitor) with Abemaciclib results in complete inhibition of RB phosphorylation and a reduction in cyclin D1 levels translating into a significant cell cycle arrest [78]. The increased BRAF degradation caused by CDK4 inhibition could, at least in part, explain the synergistic effect of combined therapies [86]. Of note, it appears that upfront triple therapy (CDK4/6-BRAF-MEK-inhibitors) may have superior efficacy compared to the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitor after tumor acquisitions of BRAF/MEK inhibitors resistance [87].
Notably, it seems that NRAS-mutant melanoma could be particularly sensitive to the combined CDK4/6/BRAF/MEK inhibition [55]. For example, in the elegant work of Kwong et al., it was shown that in NRAS-mutant melanomas, pharmacological inhibition of MEK could drive to apoptosis but not cell-cycle arrest, as it would happen after the abrogation of NRAS activity. However, the combined inhibition of MEK and CDK4 supersedes this difference leading to a substantial increase in treatment efficacy [88].
Finally, some preliminary evidence suggests that increased mTOR signaling could confer resistance to CDK4/6/BRAF/MEK triple therapy [89].
Comprehensively, the combined inhibition of CDK4/6- and BRAF/MEK-axis has shown preclinical encouraging results. Confirmatory clinical trials are ongoing (see below).

6. Clinical Activity of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma

Multiple clinical trials evaluated CDK4/6 inhibitors as single agent regimen or in combination with BRAF ± MEK inhibitors as first or subsequent line of therapy in patients with advanced solid tumors, including melanoma (Table 2).

6.1. CDK4/6 Inhibitors as Single Agents

Patnaik and colleagues tested Abemaciclib in a Phase I study that enrolled patients affected by different cancer types, like breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma, melanoma, and colorectal cancer. They evaluated the safety, the pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiles and the anti-tumor activity of Abemaciclib in 225 patients. Among them, 26 had a diagnosis of advanced melanoma: one patient achieved RECIST partial response (PR), while six patients had stable disease (SD), for an overall disease control rate of 27%. The patient with metastatic melanoma that achieved a PR had a tumor with molecular alterations (NRAS mutation and copy-number loss at the INK4 locus) that induced aberrant CDK4 and CDK6 activation [53]. Abemaciclib was subsequently studied by Sahebjam et al. in patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma. They demonstrated limited intracranial activity in this population. In fact, no confirmed intracranial response was observed (objective intracranial response rate of 0% for both cohorts). Based on the efficacy results, the authors concluded that no further studies are warranted for Abemaciclib monotherapy in this patient population [92].
The therapeutic benefit of Palbociclib has been observed in two Phase 1 trials conducted in Rb-positive solid tumors and non–Hodgkin lymphomas. These studies involved 33 and 41 patients, respectively, including four and six that were diagnosed with melanoma. Overall, none of the melanoma patients achieved a PR, while SD was recorded in one patient with melanoma in both studies [90,93].
The anti-tumor activity of Palbociclib was also tested in a trial that demonstrated preliminary activity in patients with acral lentiginous melanoma and gene aberrations in the CDK pathway [94]. Tang et al. described two case reports of melanoma patients with copy number variations of CDK4 pathway-related genes who received Palbociclib. Although no complete or partial responses were observed in these patients, the diseases were controlled for over six months after the failure of chemotherapy or immunotherapy, indicating that the CDK4 pathway is a potential therapeutic target [95].
In another Phase I dose-escalation study, Ribociclib used as a single agent was administered in patients with wild-type RB advanced solid tumors or lymphomas, with the aim to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity. Overall, 132 patients were enrolled: more than half had previously undergone radiation therapy, and nearly three-quarters had received two or more prior systemic therapies. Three were diagnosed with melanoma, and one achieved a PR [50].

6.2. CDK4/6 Combined with Other Agents

The efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors in association with target therapy has been tested in several trials, mostly Phase I or II, with interesting results.
Ribociclib was evaluated with Binimetinib (NRAS/MEK inhibitor) [50] or Encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) [96] in two different Phase I/II clinical trials in advanced NRAS and BRAF mutant melanoma. Preliminary results from Ribociclib and Binimetinib combination were presented in the abstract form at ASCO 2014 by Sosman et al. 14 pretreated patients were enrolled and Ribociclib was administered once daily for 21 days while Binimetinib was administered twice daily continuously. This combination showed an interesting antitumor activity and safety, in fact six patients achieved PR (43%) and six had SD. Several patients experienced early tumor shrinkage with major symptomatic improvement. The most common treatment-related toxicities were phosphokinase elevation, creatinine elevation, acneiform rashes, nausea, edema, leukopenia, and neutropenia [97]. Ribociclib and Encorafenib, in turn, demonstrated clinical activity and acceptable tolerability profile in patients naïve or pretreated (median three prior regimens). Ribociclib was administered with a three week on and one week off schedule, while Encorafenib was given continuously. Of nine patients evaluable for response, two had PR and five had SD and, of these, three were BRAF inhibitors-naïve and three BRAF inhibitors-pretreated. Principal adverse events registered were palmar-plantar hyperkeratosis, flushing, pruritus, rash, alopecia, dry skin, dysgeusia, fatigue, myalgia and nausea [96].
Preliminary results from a Phase IB/II dose-escalation study evaluating triple combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (Encorafenib plus Binimetinib associated with Ribociclib) were presented as abstract by Ascierto et al. at ASCO 2017. The trial enrolled patients with BRAF-V600-mutant solid tumors. The triple combination was tested in BRAF-V600 melanoma patients naïve to prior BRAF inhibitor treatment. More than half of patients (52.4%) showed a reduction in tumor size, including four complete responses (CR), 18 PR, and 15 SD. Median PFS was nine months. No dose-limiting toxicities have been reported. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, alanine transaminase elevations, diarrhea, and anemia [98].
Finally, Palbociclib and Vemurafenib were tested in an open-label Phase I-II trial involving patients with stage IIIC or IV BRAF-V600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma harboring CDKN2A loss and wild type-RB1-expression. This study aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of Palbocliclib associated with Vemurafenib. The schedule for Palbociclib was 14 days-on and seven-off, while Vemurafenib was taken continuously twice daily. Secondary endpoints included the best response, OS, and PFS. Patients have been stratified into two groups accordingly to previous BRAF inhibitor treatment (Group 1: no vs. Group 2: yes). The overall response rate of BRAF inhibitor pretreated patients was 25% and SD was registered in 50%. Intriguingly, the median PFS and OS of Group 2 were 9.3 and 13.2 months, respectively. Therefore, the authors concluded that significant clinical benefit was achieved in heavily pretreated melanoma patients [99].
Regarding immunotherapy, clinical trial that evaluating combinations of CDK4/6 inhibitors and immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors, including melanomas, are ongoing. As previously reported, there are some preclinical evidence for synergy.
These data will be useful to broaden the therapeutic horizon in patients with advanced melanoma.

7. Ongoing Clinical Trials with CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma

To outline the current trends of ongoing clinical trials in melanoma with CDK 4/6 inhibitors, we performed a keywords-driven search (compound, molecular and commercial names of Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib respectively, restricted for melanoma malignancy) on clinicaltrials.gov and manually annotated the trials of interest. We included only clinical trials conducted in a metastatic and advanced setting not amenable to radical locoregional treatment, including both cutaneous and mucosal variants and regardless of BRAF and NRAS mutational status. The CDK 4/6 inhibitors administration could have been scheduled as a first or subsequent line of treatment, both in a single agent- and in combination-therapy.
Although nine clinical trials were identified, six among them are conducted specifically in melanoma disease and therefore were considered of greater interest: four were Phase II and one was Phase I, while one trial was a Phase I/II study. Thus, the planned number of enrolled patients was from low to intermediate. Objective response rate (ORR) is the primary endpoint of the great part of Phase II studies (three out four), while Phase I trials focus on safety and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of investigated drugs (Table 3).
Two studies are designed to evaluate the DLTs and the ORR (NCT02974725 and NCT04417621, respectively) during combination therapy with Ribociclib and LXH254, a BRAF and CRAF inhibitor with antitumor activity in MAPK-driven tumor models [100]. The first trial is currently enrolling both NRAS mutant cutaneous melanomas and KRAS or BRAF mutant non-small cell lung cancers progressed after standard of care therapy, while the second one is focused on pre-treated BRAF or NRAS mutant melanomas.
The PLATforM study (NCT03484923) is, to the best of our knowledge, the only ongoing clinical trial with a CDK 4/6 inhibitor combined with an anti-PD-1 drug focused on melanoma disease. In this study, patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic melanoma, both mutant and wild type BRAF, are randomized to receive Spartalizumab combined with a second agent between Ribociclib, Capmatinib, Canakinumab, and LAG525.
The CELEBRATE (NCT04720768) and the LOGIC-2 (NCT02159066) trials are intriguingly evaluating a three-drug regimen with Encorafenib and Binimetinib plus a CDK 4/6 inhibitor in BRAF V600 positive patients. The CELEBRATE study admits both naïve and previously treated patients with BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapy, but also with checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy. In the LOGIC-2 trial, patients who progressed to first-line Encorafenib and Benimetinib continue the combination therapy and are assigned to add a third drug (including Ribociclib) according to the melanoma genetic profile.
A mutation-driven approach is also proposed in the MATCH (NCT02465060) and in the MatchMel (NCT02645149) studies. The second one focused on melanoma patients. In this trial, BRAF and NRAS wild-type patients who progressed to standard therapy are subjected to comprehensive gene testing and afterward assigned to a targeted therapy matched for their genetic result. Treatment with Ribociclib plus Trametinib has been planned for patients with CCND1, CDK4/6, CDKN2A or RAS mutations.
As observed in other malignancies, in the precision medicine era, there is an increasing tendency to personalize the oncological treatment according to cancer genetic profile and, thus, as reported above, different studies also in melanoma setting are moving in this direction.
Of note, just one trial comprises a small cohort of treatment naïve patients, while the current trend is to investigate CDK 4/6 inhibitors in association with other drugs after standard first-line treatment failure. Finally, the results of the study that combine CDK4/6 inhibitor with novel agents as LXH254 and LY3214996 (an ERK 1/2 inhibitor) are much awaited [91,100].

8. Conclusions

Despite noteworthy improvement in melanoma treatment, there is an urgent need for new and effective compounds. CDK4/6 inhibitors have already revolutionized the management of other cancers, notably breast cancer. Although their clinical utility in melanoma is probable, more studies are needed to confirm their relevance in order to include these drugs in clinical practice. However, from the currently available evidence, CDK4/6 inhibitors’ monotherapy might offer a modest benefit at best. On the contrary, adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD1 therapy might offer a substantial benefit. It will be of particular importance the evaluation of toxicities of the combined regimens and the finding of reliable predictive biomarkers of CDK4/6 inhibitor-efficacy.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente) ad by contribution “5 × 1000 per la ricerca sanitaria”.

Conflicts of Interest

M.G.: reports advisory board from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pierre-Fabre, all outside the submitted work. A.M.M.: reports advisory board Novartis, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, honoraria from Novartis, Merck, MSD, Sunpharma, Pierre-Fabre. F.P.: reports advisory boards from Amgen, research fundings from Astrazeneca, travel grants from Celgene, research funding, and advisory boards from Eisai, advisory boards from Eli Lilly, honoraria from Ipsen, advisory boards, and honoraria from MSD, advisory boards from Novartis, advisory boards from Pierre-Fabre and Pfizer, advisory boards, travel grants, and research funding from Roche and honoraria from Takeda, all outside the submitted work.

Abbreviations

CDC = cell division cycle. CDK = cyclin-dependent kinase. DLT = dose limiting toxicity. ORR = objective response rate. OS = overall survival. PFS = progression-free survival. RTK = receptor tyrosine kinases.

References

  1. Pollack, L.A.; Li, J.; Berkowitz, Z.; Weir, H.K.; Wu, X.-C.; Ajani, U.A.; Ekwueme, D.U.; Li, C.; Pollack, B.P. Melanoma Survival in the United States, 1992 to 2005. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2011, 65, S78–S86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Larkin, J.; Chiarion-Sileni, V.; Gonzalez, R.; Grob, J.-J.; Rutkowski, P.; Lao, C.D.; Cowey, C.L.; Schadendorf, D.; Wagstaff, J.; Dummer, R.; et al. Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Robert, C.; Ribas, A.; Schachter, J.; Arance, A.; Grob, J.-J.; Mortier, L.; Daud, A.; Carlino, M.S.; McNeil, C.M.; Lotem, M.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): Post-Hoc 5-Year Results from an Open-Label, Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled, Phase 3 Study. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dummer, R.; Ascierto, P.A.; Gogas, H.J.; Arance, A.; Mandala, M.; Liszkay, G.; Garbe, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Krajsova, I.; Gutzmer, R.; et al. Encorafenib plus Binimetinib versus Vemurafenib or Encorafenib in Patients with BRAF-Mutant Melanoma (COLUMBUS): A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Dummer, R.; Hauschild, A.; Santinami, M.; Atkinson, V.; Mandalà, M.; Kirkwood, J.M.; Chiarion Sileni, V.; Larkin, J.; Nyakas, M.; Dutriaux, C.; et al. Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sheppard, K.E.; McArthur, G.A. The Cell-Cycle Regulator CDK4: An Emerging Therapeutic Target in Melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 5320–5328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Simmons Kovacs, L.A.; Mayhew, M.B.; Orlando, D.A.; Jin, Y.; Li, Q.; Huang, C.; Reed, S.I.; Mukherjee, S.; Haase, S.B. Cyclin-Dependent Kinases Are Regulators and Effectors of Oscillations Driven by a Transcription Factor Network. Mol. Cell 2012, 45, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Coudreuse, D.; Nurse, P. Driving the Cell Cycle with a Minimal CDK Control Network. Nature 2010, 468, 1074–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Foster, D.A.; Yellen, P.; Xu, L.; Saqcena, M. Regulation of G1 Cell Cycle Progression: Distinguishing the Restriction Point from a Nutrient-Sensing Cell Growth Checkpoint(s). Genes Cancer 2010, 1, 1124–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morgan, D.O. Principles of CDK Regulation. Nature 1995, 374, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gao, X.; Leone, G.W.; Wang, H. Cyclin D-CDK4/6 functions in cancer. In Advances in Cancer Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 148, pp. 147–169. ISBN 978-0-12-820327-9. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tchakarska, G.; Sola, B. The Double Dealing of Cyclin D1. Cell Cycle 2020, 19, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Poon, R.Y.C. Cell Cycle Control: A System of Interlinking Oscillators. In Cell Cycle Oscillators; Coutts, A.S., Weston, L., Eds.; Methods in Molecular Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 1342, pp. 3–19. ISBN 978-1-4939-2956-6. [Google Scholar]
  14. Giacinti, C.; Giordano, A. RB and Cell Cycle Progression. Oncogene 2006, 25, 5220–5227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Lai, L.; Shin, G.Y.; Qiu, H. The Role of Cell Cycle Regulators in Cell Survival—Dual Functions of Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 20 and P21Cip1/Waf1. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ortega, S.; Malumbres, M.; Barbacid, M. Cyclin D-Dependent Kinases, INK4 Inhibitors and Cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA Rev. Cancer 2002, 1602, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Asghar, U.; Witkiewicz, A.K.; Turner, N.C.; Knudsen, E.S. The History and Future of Targeting Cyclin-Dependent Kinases in Cancer Therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015, 14, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Hayward, N.K.; Wilmott, J.S.; Waddell, N.; Johansson, P.A.; Field, M.A.; Nones, K.; Patch, A.-M.; Kakavand, H.; Alexandrov, L.B.; Burke, H.; et al. Whole-Genome Landscapes of Major Melanoma Subtypes. Nature 2017, 545, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hamilton, E.; Infante, J.R. Targeting CDK4/6 in Patients with Cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2016, 45, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Young, R.J.; Waldeck, K.; Martin, C.; Foo, J.H.; Cameron, D.P.; Kirby, L.; Do, H.; Mitchell, C.; Cullinane, C.; Liu, W.; et al. Loss of CDKN2A Expression Is a Frequent Event in Primary Invasive Melanoma and Correlates with Sensitivity to the CDK4/6 Inhibitor PD0332991 in Melanoma Cell Lines. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2014, 27, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sanki, A.; Li, W.; Colman, M.; Karim, R.Z.; Thompson, J.F.; Scolyer, R.A. Reduced Expression of P16 and P27 Is Correlated with Tumour Progression in Cutaneous Melanoma. Pathology (Phila.) 2007, 39, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tsao, H.; Chin, L.; Garraway, L.A.; Fisher, D.E. Melanoma: From Mutations to Medicine. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 1131–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Chan, S.H.; Chiang, J.; Ngeow, J. CDKN2A Germline Alterations and the Relevance of Genotype-Phenotype Associations in Cancer Predisposition. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 2021, 19, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goldstein, A.M. Prospective Risk of Cancer in CDKN2A Germline Mutation Carriers. J. Med. Genet. 2004, 41, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Rane, S.G.; Cosenza, S.C.; Mettus, R.V.; Reddy, E.P. Germ Line Transmission of the Cdk4R24C Mutation Facilitates Tumorigenesis and Escape from Cellular Senescence. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2002, 22, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Sotillo, R.; Garcia, J.F.; Ortega, S.; Martin, J.; Dubus, P.; Barbacid, M.; Malumbres, M. Invasive Melanoma in Cdk4-Targeted Mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 13312–13317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Montalto, F.I.; De Amicis, F. Cyclin D1 in Cancer: A Molecular Connection for Cell Cycle Control, Adhesion and Invasion in Tumor and Stroma. Cells 2020, 9, 2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vízkeleti, L.; Ecsedi, S.; Rákosy, Z.; Orosz, A.; Lázár, V.; Emri, G.; Koroknai, V.; Kiss, T.; Ádány, R.; Balázs, M. The Role of CCND1 Alterations during the Progression of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma. Tumor Biol. 2012, 33, 2189–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. González-Ruiz, L.; González-Moles, M.Á.; González-Ruiz, I.; Ruiz-Ávila, I.; Ayén, Á.; Ramos-García, P. An Update on the Implications of Cyclin D1 in Melanomas. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2020, 33, 788–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kong, Y.; Sheng, X.; Wu, X.; Yan, J.; Ma, M.; Yu, J.; Si, L.; Chi, Z.; Cui, C.; Dai, J.; et al. Frequent Genetic Aberrations in the CDK4 Pathway in Acral Melanoma Indicate the Potential for CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Targeted Therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 6946–6957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Broit, N.; Johansson, P.A.; Rodgers, C.B.; Walpole, S.T.; Newell, F.; Hayward, N.K.; Pritchard, A.L. Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Genomics of Mucosal Melanoma. Mol. Cancer Res. 2021, 34, 1541–7786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elefanti, L.; Zamuner, C.; Del Fiore, P.; Stagni, C.; Pellegrini, S.; Dall’Olmo, L.; Fabozzi, A.; Senetta, R.; Ribero, S.; Salmaso, R.; et al. The Molecular Landscape of Primary Acral Melanoma: A Multicenter Study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bhatt, K.V.; Spofford, L.S.; Aram, G.; McMullen, M.; Pumiglia, K.; Aplin, A.E. Adhesion Control of Cyclin D1 and P27Kip1 Levels Is Deregulated in Melanoma Cells through BRAF-MEK-ERK Signaling. Oncogene 2005, 24, 3459–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Curtin, J.A.; Patel, H.N.; Cho, K.-H.; LeBoit, P.E. Distinct Sets of Genetic Alterations in Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 2135–2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guo, L.; Qi, J.; Wang, H.; Jiang, X.; Liu, Y. Getting under the Skin: The Role of CDK4/6 in Melanomas. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 204, 112531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Mohanna, M.A.; Manogaran, P.S.; Al-Mukhalafi, Z.; Al-Hussein, K.A.; Aboussekhra, A. The tumor suppressor P16INK4a gene is a regulator of apoptosis induced by ultraviolet light and cisplatin. Oncogene 2004, 23, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Al-Khalaf, H.H.; Mohideen, P.; Nallar, S.C.; Kalvakolanu, D.V.; Aboussekhra, A. The cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor P16INK4a physically interacts with transcription factor Sp1 and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 to transactivate microRNA-141 and microRNA-146b-5p spontaneously and in response to ultraviolet light-induced DNA damage. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 35511–35525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kannan, K.; Sharpless, N.E.; Xu, J.; O’Hagan, R.C.; Bosenberg, M.; Chin, L. Components of the Rb Pathway Are Critical Targets of UV Mutagenesis in a Murine Melanoma Model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 1221–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Abd Elmageed, Z.Y.; Gaur, R.L.; Williams, M.; Abdraboh, M.E.; Rao, P.N.; Raj, M.H.G.; Ismail, F.M.; Ouhtit, A. Characterization of Coordinated Immediate Responses by P16INK4A and P53 Pathways in UVB-Irradiated Human Skin Cells. J. Invest. Dermatol. 2009, 129, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Poratti, M.; Marzaro, G. Third-Generation CDK Inhibitors: A Review on the Synthesis and Binding Modes of Palbociclib, Ribociclib and Abemaciclib. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 172, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. VanArsdale, T.; Boshoff, C.; Arndt, K.T.; Abraham, R.T. Molecular Pathways: Targeting the Cyclin D-CDK4/6 Axis for Cancer Treatment. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 21, 2905–2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Product Characteristics Palbociclib. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/Ucm549978.htm (accessed on 27 May 2021).
  43. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Product Characteristics Ribociclib. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/Ucm546438.Htm (accessed on 27 May 2021).
  44. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Product Characteristics Abemaciclib. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/Ucm578081.Htm (accessed on 27 May 2021).
  45. Roncato, R.; Angelini, J.; Pani, A.; Cecchin, E.; Sartore-Bianchi, A.; Siena, S.; De Mattia, E.; Scaglione, F.; Toffoli, G. Cdk4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer Treatment: Potential Interactions with Drug, Gene, and Pathophysiological Conditions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gelbert, L.M.; Cai, S.; Lin, X.; Sanchez-Martinez, C.; Del Prado, M.; Lallena, M.J.; Torres, R.; Ajamie, R.T.; Wishart, G.N.; Flack, R.S.; et al. Preclinical Characterization of the CDK4/6 Inhibitor LY2835219: In-Vivo Cell Cycle-Dependent/Independent Anti-Tumor Activities Alone/in Combination with Gemcitabine. Invest. New Drugs 2014, 32, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Spring, L.M.; Wander, S.A.; Andre, F.; Moy, B.; Turner, N.C.; Bardia, A. Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4 and 6 Inhibitors for Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Past, Present, and Future. Lancet 2020, 395, 817–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Thein, K.Z.; Htut, T.W.; Ball, S.; Swarup, S.; Sultan, A.; Hlaing, O.T. Venous thromboembolism risk in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with combined CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 183, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tripathy, D.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Chan, A.; Im, S.-A.; Chia, S.; Yardley, D.; Esteva, F.J.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Ridolfi, A.; Slamon, D. Pooled Safety Analysis of First-Line Ribociclib (RIB) plus Endocrine Therapy (ET) in HR+/HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC). Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, iii53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Infante, J.R.; Cassier, P.A.; Gerecitano, J.F.; Witteveen, P.O.; Chugh, R.; Ribrag, V.; Chakraborty, A.; Matano, A.; Dobson, J.R.; Crystal, A.S.; et al. A Phase I Study of the Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitor Ribociclib (LEE011) in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors and Lymphomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 5696–5705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Sammons, S.L.; Topping, D.L.; Blackwell, K.L. HR+, HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer and CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Mode of Action, Clinical Activity, and Safety Profiles. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2017, 17, 637–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tate, S.C.; Sykes, A.K.; Kulanthaivel, P.; Chan, E.M.; Turner, P.K.; Cronier, D.M. A Population Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Abemaciclib in a Phase I Clinical Trial in Cancer Patients. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2018, 57, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Patnaik, A.; Rosen, L.S.; Tolaney, S.M.; Tolcher, A.W.; Goldman, J.W.; Gandhi, L.; Papadopoulos, K.P.; Beeram, M.; Rasco, D.W.; Hilton, J.F.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Abemaciclib, an Inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, for Patients with Breast Cancer, Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, and Other Solid Tumors. Cancer Discov. 2016, 6, 740–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Braal, C.L.; Jongbloed, E.M.; Wilting, S.M.; Mathijssen, R.H.J.; Koolen, S.L.W.; Jager, A. Inhibiting CDK4/6 in Breast Cancer with Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib: Similarities and Differences. Drugs 2020, 81, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hayes, T.K.; Luo, F.; Cohen, O.; Goodale, A.B.; Lee, Y.; Pantel, S.; Bagul, M.; Piccioni, F.; Root, D.E.; Garraway, L.A.; et al. A Functional Landscape of Resistance to MEK1/2 and CDK4/6 Inhibition in NRAS-Mutant Melanoma. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 2352–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Yoshida, A.; Bu, Y.; Qie, S.; Wrangle, J.; Camp, E.R.; Hazard, E.S.; Hardiman, G.; de Leeuw, R.; Knudsen, K.E.; Diehl, J.A. SLC36A1-MTORC1 Signaling Drives Acquired Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax6352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Vilgelm, A.E.; Saleh, N.; Shattuck-Brandt, R.; Riemenschneider, K.; Slesur, L.; Chen, S.-C.; Johnson, C.A.; Yang, J.; Blevins, A.; Yan, C.; et al. MDM2 Antagonists Overcome Intrinsic Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibition by Inducing P21. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Klein, M.E.; Dickson, M.A.; Antonescu, C.; Qin, L.-X.; Dooley, S.J.; Barlas, A.; Manova, K.; Schwartz, G.K.; Crago, A.M.; Singer, S.; et al. PDLIM7 and CDH18 Regulate the Turnover of MDM2 during CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy-Induced Senescence. Oncogene 2018, 37, 5066–5078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. AbuHammad, S.; Cullinane, C.; Martin, C.; Bacolas, Z.; Ward, T.; Chen, H.; Slater, A.; Ardley, K.; Kirby, L.; Chan, K.T.; et al. Regulation of PRMT5-MDM4 Axis Is Critical in the Response to CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 17990–18000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Li, Z.; Zou, W.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Q.; Li, S.; Chen, C. Mechanisms of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Resistance in Luminal Breast Cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, C.; Li, Z.; Bhatt, T.; Dickler, M.; Giri, D.; Scaltriti, M.; Baselga, J.; Rosen, N.; Chandarlapaty, S. Acquired CDK6 Amplification Promotes Breast Cancer Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors and Loss of ER Signaling and Dependence. Oncogene 2017, 36, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Witkiewicz, A.K.; Knudsen, K.E.; Dicker, A.P.; Knudsen, E.S. The Meaning of P16(Ink4a) Expression in Tumors: Functional Significance, Clinical Associations and Future Developments. Cell Cycle 2011, 10, 2497–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. DeMichele, A.; Clark, A.S.; Tan, K.S.; Heitjan, D.F.; Gramlich, K.; Gallagher, M.; Lal, P.; Feldman, M.; Zhang, P.; Colameco, C.; et al. CDK 4/6 Inhibitor Palbociclib (PD0332991) in Rb+ Advanced Breast Cancer: Phase II Activity, Safety, and Predictive Biomarker Assessment. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 21, 995–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Formisano, L.; Stauffer, K.M.; Young, C.D.; Bhola, N.E.; Guerrero-Zotano, A.L.; Jansen, V.M.; Estrada, M.M.; Hutchinson, K.E.; Giltnane, J.M.; Schwarz, L.J.; et al. Association of FGFR1 with ERα Maintains Ligand-Independent ER Transcription and Mediates Resistance to Estrogen Deprivation in ER+ Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 6138–6150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Formisano, L.; Lu, Y.; Servetto, A.; Hanker, A.B.; Jansen, V.M.; Bauer, J.A.; Sudhan, D.R.; Guerrero-Zotano, A.L.; Croessmann, S.; Guo, Y.; et al. Aberrant FGFR Signaling Mediates Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors in ER+ Breast Cancer. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Li, Z.; Razavi, P.; Li, Q.; Toy, W.; Liu, B.; Ping, C.; Hsieh, W.; Sanchez-Vega, F.; Brown, D.N.; Da Cruz Paula, A.F.; et al. Loss of the FAT1 Tumor Suppressor Promotes Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors via the Hippo Pathway. Cancer Cell 2018, 34, 893.e8–905.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Caldon, C.E.; Sergio, C.M.; Schütte, J.; Boersma, M.N.; Sutherland, R.L.; Carroll, J.S.; Musgrove, E.A. Estrogen Regulation of Cyclin E2 Requires Cyclin D1 but Not C-Myc. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2009, 29, 4623–4639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Turner, N.C.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Loi, S.; Colleoni, M.; Loibl, S.; DeMichele, A.; Harbeck, N.; André, F.; Bayar, M.A.; et al. Cyclin E1 Expression and Palbociclib Efficacy in Previously Treated Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 1169–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Vijayaraghavan, S.; Karakas, C.; Doostan, I.; Chen, X.; Bui, T.; Yi, M.; Raghavendra, A.S.; Zhao, Y.; Bashour, S.I.; Ibrahim, N.K.; et al. CDK4/6 and Autophagy Inhibitors Synergistically Induce Senescence in Rb Positive Cytoplasmic Cyclin E Negative Cancers. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Lee, J.; Lim, B.; Pearson, T.; Tripathy, D.; Ordentlich, P.; Ueno, N.T. Abstract P5-21-15: The Synergistic Antitumor Activity of Entinostat (MS-275) in Combination with Palbociclib (PD 0332991) in Estrogen Receptor-Positive and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, P5-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cornell, L.; Wander, S.A.; Visal, T.; Wagle, N.; Shapiro, G.I. MicroRNA-Mediated Suppression of the TGF-β Pathway Confers Transmissible and Reversible CDK4/6 Inhibitor Resistance. Cell Rep. 2019, 26, 2667.e7–2680.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Zhang, J.; Bu, X.; Wang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Geng, Y.; Nihira, N.T.; Tan, Y.; Ci, Y.; Wu, F.; Dai, X.; et al. Cyclin D-CDK4 Kinase Destabilizes PD-L1 via Cullin 3-SPOP to Control Cancer Immune Surveillance. Nature 2018, 553, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Yu, J.; Yan, J.; Guo, Q.; Chi, Z.; Tang, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, J.; Yin, T.; Cheng, Z.; Wu, X.; et al. Genetic Aberrations in the CDK4 Pathway Are Associated with Innate Resistance to PD-1 Blockade in Chinese Patients with Non-Cutaneous Melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 6511–6523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Jerby-Arnon, L.; Shah, P.; Cuoco, M.S.; Rodman, C.; Su, M.-J.; Melms, J.C.; Leeson, R.; Kanodia, A.; Mei, S.; Lin, J.-R.; et al. A Cancer Cell Program Promotes T Cell Exclusion and Resistance to Checkpoint Blockade. Cell 2018, 175, 984.e24–997.e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Goel, S.; DeCristo, M.J.; Watt, A.C.; BrinJones, H.; Sceneay, J.; Li, B.B.; Khan, N.; Ubellacker, J.M.; Xie, S.; Metzger-Filho, O.; et al. CDK4/6 Inhibition Triggers Anti-Tumour Immunity. Nature 2017, 548, 471–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stopfer, L.E.; Mesfin, J.M.; Joughin, B.A.; Lauffenburger, D.A.; White, F.M. Multiplexed Relative and Absolute Quantitative Immunopeptidomics Reveals MHC I Repertoire Alterations Induced by CDK4/6 Inhibition. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Deng, J.; Wang, E.S.; Jenkins, R.W.; Li, S.; Dries, R.; Yates, K.; Chhabra, S.; Huang, W.; Liu, H.; Aref, A.R.; et al. CDK4/6 Inhibition Augments Antitumor Immunity by Enhancing T-Cell Activation. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 216–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Cheng, L.; Lopez-Beltran, A.; Massari, F.; MacLennan, G.T.; Montironi, R. Molecular Testing for BRAF Mutations to Inform Melanoma Treatment Decisions: A Move toward Precision Medicine. Mod. Pathol. 2018, 31, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chapman, P.B.; Hauschild, A.; Robert, C.; Haanen, J.B.; Ascierto, P.; Larkin, J.; Dummer, R.; Garbe, C.; Testori, A.; Maio, M.; et al. Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 2507–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kakadia, S.; Yarlagadda, N.; Awad, R.; Kundranda, M.; Niu, J.; Naraev, B.; Mina, L.; Dragovich, T.; Gimbel, M.; Mahmoud, F. Mechanisms of Resistance to BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Clinical Update of US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Targeted Therapy in Advanced Melanoma. OncoTargets Ther. 2018, 11, 7095–7107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Kim, H.S.; Jung, M.; Kang, H.N.; Kim, H.; Park, C.-W.; Kim, S.-M.; Shin, S.J.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, S.G.; Kim, E.K.; et al. Oncogenic BRAF Fusions in Mucosal Melanomas Activate the MAPK Pathway and Are Sensitive to MEK/PI3K Inhibition or MEK/CDK4/6 Inhibition. Oncogene 2017, 36, 3334–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Appenzeller, S.; Gesierich, A.; Thiem, A.; Hufnagel, A.; Jessen, C.; Kneitz, H.; Regensburger, M.; Schmidt, C.; Zirkenbach, V.; Bischler, T.; et al. The Identification of Patient-Specific Mutations Reveals Dual Pathway Activation in Most Patients with Melanoma and Activated Receptor Tyrosine Kinases in BRAF/NRAS Wild-Type Melanomas. Cancer 2019, 125, 586–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Yoshida, A.; Lee, E.K.; Diehl, J.A. Induction of Therapeutic Senescence in Vemurafenib-Resistant Melanoma by Extended Inhibition of CDK4/6. Cancer Res. 2016, 76, 2990–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Kale, A.; Sharma, A.; Stolzing, A.; Desprez, P.-Y.; Campisi, J. Role of Immune Cells in the Removal of Deleterious Senescent Cells. Immun. Ageing A 2020, 17, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Teh, J.L.F.; Erkes, D.A.; Cheng, P.F.; Tiago, M.; Wilski, N.A.; Field, C.O.; Chervoneva, I.; Levesque, M.P.; Xu, X.; Dummer, R.; et al. Activation of CD8+ T Cells Contributes to Antitumor Effects of CDK4/6 Inhibitors plus MEK Inhibitors. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2020, 8, 1114–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Wan, L.; Chen, M.; Cao, J.; Dai, X.; Yin, Q.; Zhang, J.; Song, S.-J.; Lu, Y.; Liu, J.; Inuzuka, H.; et al. The APC/C E3 Ligase Complex Activator FZR1 Restricts BRAF Oncogenic Function. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 424–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Martin, C.A.; Cullinane, C.; Kirby, L.; Abuhammad, S.; Lelliott, E.J.; Waldeck, K.; Young, R.J.; Brajanovski, N.; Cameron, D.P.; Walker, R.; et al. Palbociclib Synergizes with BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Treatment Naïve Melanoma but Not after the Development of BRAF Inhibitor Resistance. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 142, 2139–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Kwong, L.N.; Costello, J.C.; Liu, H.; Jiang, S.; Helms, T.L.; Langsdorf, A.E.; Jakubosky, D.; Genovese, G.; Muller, F.L.; Jeong, J.H.; et al. Oncogenic NRAS Signaling Differentially Regulates Survival and Proliferation in Melanoma. Nat. Med. 2012, 18, 1503–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Teh, J.L.F.; Cheng, P.F.; Purwin, T.J.; Nikbakht, N.; Patel, P.; Chervoneva, I.; Ertel, A.; Fortina, P.M.; Kleiber, I.; HooKim, K.; et al. In Vivo E2F Reporting Reveals Efficacious Schedules of MEK1/2-CDK4/6 Targeting and MTOR-S6 Resistance Mechanisms. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 568–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Schwartz, G.K.; LoRusso, P.M.; Dickson, M.A.; Randolph, S.S.; Shaik, M.N.; Wilner, K.D.; Courtney, R.; O’Dwyer, P.J. Phase I Study of PD 0332991, a Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor, Administered in 3-Week Cycles (Schedule 2/1). Br. J. Cancer 2011, 104, 1862–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Pant, S.; Bendell, J.C.; Sullivan, R.J.; Shapiro, G.; Millward, M.; Mi, G.; Yuen, E.; Willard, M.D.; Wang, D.; Joseph, S.; et al. A Phase I Dose Escalation (DE) Study of ERK Inhibitor, LY3214996, in Advanced (Adv) Cancer (CA) Patients (Pts). J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sahebjam, S.; Rhun, E.L.; Queirolo, P.; Jerusalem, G.; Subramaniam, D.; Bear, M.; Yang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Conte, P.F. A Phase II Study of Abemaciclib in Patients (Pts) with Brain Metastases (BM) Secondary to Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) or Melanoma (MEL). Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, v117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Flaherty, K.T.; Lorusso, P.M.; DeMichele, A.; Abramson, V.G.; Courtney, R.; Randolph, S.S.; Shaik, M.N.; Wilner, K.D.; O’Dwyer, P.J.; Schwartz, G.K. Phase I, dose-escalation trial of the oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor PD 0332991, administered using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Mao, L.; Cao, Y.; Sheng, X.; Bai, X.; Chi, Z.; Cui, C.; Wang, X.; Tang, B.; Lian, B.; Yan, X.; et al. Palbociclib (P) in Advanced Acral Lentiginous Melanoma (ALM) with CDK4 Pathway Gene Aberrations. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 9528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tang, B.; Sheng, X.; Kong, Y.; Chi, Z.; Si, L.; Cui, C.; Yan, X.; Mao, L.; Lian, B.; Li, S.; et al. Palbociclib for Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma with Copy Number Variations of CDK4 Pathway: Case Report. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 7, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Taylor, M.; Sosman, J.; Gonzalez, R.; Carlino, M.S.; Kittaneh, M.; Lolkema, M.P.; Miller, W.; Marino, A.; Zhang, V.; Bhansali, S.G.; et al. 1086O—Phase Ib/Ii Study of Lee011 (Cdk4/6 Inhibitor) and Lgx818 (Braf Inhibitor) in Braf-Mutant Melanoma. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, iv374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sosman, J.A.; Kittaneh, M.; Lolkema, M.P.J.K.; Postow, M.A.; Schwartz, G.; Franklin, C.; Matano, A.; Bhansali, S.; Parasuraman, S.; Kim, K. A phase 1b/2 study of LEE011 in combination with binimetinib (MEK162) in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma: Early encouraging clinical activity. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ascierto, P.A.; Bechter, O.; Wolter, P.; Lebbe, C.; Elez, E.; Miller, W.H.; Long, G.V.; Omlin, A.G.; Siena, S.; Calvo, E.; et al. A Phase Ib/II Dose-Escalation Study Evaluating Triple Combination Therapy with a BRAF (Encorafenib), MEK (Binimetinib), and CDK 4/6 (Ribociclib) Inhibitor in Patients (Pts) with BRAF V600-Mutant Solid Tumors and Melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 9518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Louveau, B.; Resche-Rigon, M.; Lesimple, T.; Pracht, M.; Baroudjian, B.; Delyon, J.; Jouenne, F.; Amini-Adle, M.; Dutriaux, C.; Da Meda, L.; et al. Phase I-II Open Label Multicenter Study of PD0332991 in BRAFV600mut Metastatic Melanoma Patients Harboring CDKN2A Loss and RB1 Expression and Treated with Vemurafenib. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 9545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Janku, F.; Iyer, G.; Spreafico, A.; Yamamoto, N.; Bang, Y.-J.; Elez, E.; De Jonge, M.J.; Groen, H.J.M.; Marmé, F.; Gollmer, K.; et al. A Phase I Study of LXH254 in Patients (Pts) with Advanced Solid Tumors Harboring MAPK Pathway Alterations. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cells 10 01334 g001 550
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the most relevant pathways, and their interconnection, that regulate the p16ink4A-cyclin D-CDK4/6-RB pathway. The stimulation of tyrosine kinase receptors on the cell membrane by mitogen stimuli activates the Ras axis, leading to the transcription of CCND1 gene with an increased expression of Cyclin-D. In parallel, the PI3K pathway (PI3K-Akt-mTor) regulates the downstream translation of CCND1 mRNA via mTor. In cellular cytosol, the Cyclin D1 forms complexes with its binding partners, CDK4/6, and translocates to the nucleus. Here, mutually with the downstream complex CyclinE-CDK2, it hyperphosphorylates the RB protein, thus inactivating it. Subsequently, E2F is released and drives the transcription of the genes involved in the G1-S transition. This pathway is negatively regulated by some natural inhibitors, such as p16INK4A, that inhibit the assembly of the Cyclin D-CDK4/6 complex. Moreover, p16INK4A is usually suppressed by the hypophosphorylated form of RB. The CDK4/6 mediated-hyperphosphorylation of RB causes its inactivation and relieves the RB1-mediated suppression of p16INK4A.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the most relevant pathways, and their interconnection, that regulate the p16ink4A-cyclin D-CDK4/6-RB pathway. The stimulation of tyrosine kinase receptors on the cell membrane by mitogen stimuli activates the Ras axis, leading to the transcription of CCND1 gene with an increased expression of Cyclin-D. In parallel, the PI3K pathway (PI3K-Akt-mTor) regulates the downstream translation of CCND1 mRNA via mTor. In cellular cytosol, the Cyclin D1 forms complexes with its binding partners, CDK4/6, and translocates to the nucleus. Here, mutually with the downstream complex CyclinE-CDK2, it hyperphosphorylates the RB protein, thus inactivating it. Subsequently, E2F is released and drives the transcription of the genes involved in the G1-S transition. This pathway is negatively regulated by some natural inhibitors, such as p16INK4A, that inhibit the assembly of the Cyclin D-CDK4/6 complex. Moreover, p16INK4A is usually suppressed by the hypophosphorylated form of RB. The CDK4/6 mediated-hyperphosphorylation of RB causes its inactivation and relieves the RB1-mediated suppression of p16INK4A.
Cells 10 01334 g001
Table
Table 1. Pharmacologic features of Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib.
Table 1. Pharmacologic features of Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib.
Palbociclib (IBRANCE®) [42]Ribociclib (KISQUALI®) [43]Abemaciclib (VERZENIOS®) [44]
Chemistry Cells 10 01334 i001 Cells 10 01334 i002 Cells 10 01334 i003
Dose and schedule125 mg daily three weeks on/one week off600 mg daily three weeks on/one week off150 mg twice daily continuously
AdministrationOralOralOral
FormCapsuleTabletTablet
 
Activity
IC50 CDK4
IC50 CDK6
IC50 CDK9		CDK4 and CDK6
CDK4 ≈ CDK6
11 nM
16 nM
NR		CDK4 and CDK6
CDK4 > CDK6
10 nM
39 nM
NR		CDK4, CDK6, CDK1, CDK2, CDK7 and CDK9
CDK4 >> CDK6
2 nM
10 nM
57 nM
PK
Tmax (h)
T1/2 (h)
Vd (L)		 
4–12
24–34
2583		 
1–4
30–55
1090		 
8
17–38
690.3
Lipophilicity (cLog P)2.72.35.5
Protein binding85%70%96–98%
Bioavailability46%NR45%
MetabolismHepatic (CYP3A4 and SULT2A1)Hepatic (CYP3A4)Hepatic (CYP3A4)
MetabolitesGlucuronide conjugate: 1.5%M13 (CCI284, N-hydroxylation): 22%
M4 (LEQ803, N-demethylation): 20%
M1 (secondary glucuronide): 18%		M2 (N-desethylabemaciclib): 25%
M18 (hydroxy-N-desethylabemaciclib): 13%
M20 (hydroxyabemaciclib): 26%
ExcretionFeces: 74%
Urine: 17%		Feces: 69.1%
Urine: 22.6%		Feces: 81%
Urine: 3.4%
Table
Table 2. Clinical evidence of CDK4/k inhibitors in melanoma.
Table 2. Clinical evidence of CDK4/k inhibitors in melanoma.
DrugEvidenceN° PatientsNCT Number
AbemaciclibPhase I dose escalation and tumor-specific cohort study. Primary objective: safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives: pharmacokinetics, evaluate biomarkers, antitumor activity, and establish a recommended dose range 225 total
(26 melanoma)		NCT01394016
AbemaciclibPhase 2, non-randomized study. Primary end point: objective intracranial response rate. Secondary end point: intracranial clinical benefit, PFS, OS and safety.51 total
(23 melanoma)		NCT02308020
PalbociclibPhase I, dose-finding, non-comparative study. Primary objectives: safety, identifying dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), the maximum administered dose and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to establish the recommended dose for Phase II studies (RP2D). Secondary objectives: characterization of single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) and evaluation of preliminary anti-tumor activity.33 total
(4 melanoma)		[90]
PalbociclibPhase I, dose-finding, non-comparative study. Primary objectives: safety, DLT, maximum administered dose, MTD. Secondary objectives: characterization of single-dose and PK and evaluation of preliminary anti-tumor activity41 total
(6 melanoma)		NCT00141297
PalbociclibPhase II, open-labeled study. Primary end point: ORR. Secondary end point: OS, PFS, safety15
(melanoma)		NCT03454919
PalbociclibCase report2
(melanoma)		[91]
RibociclibPhase I, dose-escalation study.
Primary end point: MTD/recommended dose for expansion (RDE), and DLT. Secondary end point: safety, PK, pharmacodynamics (PD), and preliminary activity of ribociclib		132 total
(3 melanoma)		NCT01237236
Ribociclib and BinimetinibPhase 1b/2 study of LEE011 + binimetinib. Primary objective: estimate MTD/RP2D. Secondary objectives: safety, PK and efficacy.14
(melanoma)		NCT01781572
Ribociclib and EncorafenibPhase 1b/2. Primary objective safety and efficacy18
(melanoma)		NCT01777776
Ribociclib, Encorafenib and BinimetinibPhase 1b, multicenter study, primary objective: MTD, DLT and ORR63
(melanoma)		NCT01543698
Palbociclib and VemurafenibPhase I–II, multicenter study. Primary objective DLT, secondary objective: efficacy, tolerance and one year survival rate99
(melanoma)		NCT02202200
Table
Table 3. Ongoing clinical trial with CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. DLTs = dose listing toxicities; * melanoma and BRAF and KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancers.
Table 3. Ongoing clinical trial with CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. DLTs = dose listing toxicities; * melanoma and BRAF and KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancers.
StudyPhaseSettingInvestigated DrugN.Primary OutcomeCurrent StatusEstimated End
Melanoma specific studies
NCT04720768
(CELEBRATE)		Ib/IIMetastatic or unresectable untreated or previously treated melanoma BRAF V600 mutantEncorafenib + Binimetinib + Palbociclib78DLTsRecruitingDecember 2023
NCT02974725 *IbMetastatic or advanced cutaneous previously treated melanoma NRAS mutantLXH254 + Ribociclib331DLTs and safetyRecruitingMay 2022
NCT02159066
(LOGIC-2)		IIMetastatic or unresectable melanoma BRAF V600 mutant progressed to prior Encorafenib + BinimetinibEncorafenib + Binimetinib + Ribociclib160ORRActive, not recruitingJanuary 2022
NCT04417621IIMetastatic or unresectable previously treated melanoma BRAF V600 or NRAS mutantLXH254 + Ribociclib320ORRRecruitingApril 2023
NCT03484923
(PLATforM)		IIMetastatic or unresectable previously treated melanomaSpartalizumab + Ribociclib195ORRRecruitingJune 2022
NCT02645149
(MatchMel)		IIMetastatic or unresectable melanomaTrametinib + Ribociclib1000Type and frequency of genetic aberrations in BRAF/NRAS wt metastatic melanoma and proportion of BRAF/NRAS wt receiving target therapyNot yet recruiting (May 2021)December 2028
Non-melanoma specific studies
NCT02465060
(MATCH)		IIMetastatic or recurrent previously treated melanoma Palbociclib6452ORRRecruitingJune 2022
NCT02857270IMetastatic melanoma NRAS or BRAF mutant progressed to target therapyLY3214996 + Abemaciclib245LY3214996 DLTsRecruiting
(not yet recruiting for melanoma cohort)		September 2021
NCT02791334
(PACT)		IMetastatic cutaneous melanoma LY3300054 + Abemaciclib215LY3300054 DLTsActive, not recruitingDecember 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Garutti, M.; Targato, G.; Buriolla, S.; Palmero, L.; Minisini, A.M.; Puglisi, F. CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review. Cells 2021, 10, 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10061334

AMA Style

Garutti M, Targato G, Buriolla S, Palmero L, Minisini AM, Puglisi F. CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review. Cells. 2021; 10(6):1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10061334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garutti, Mattia, Giada Targato, Silvia Buriolla, Lorenza Palmero, Alessandro Marco Minisini, and Fabio Puglisi. 2021. "CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review" Cells 10, no. 6: 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10061334

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop