Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of ochsnerjLink to Publisher's site
Ochsner J. 2010 Summer; 10(2): 93–98.
PMCID: PMC3096197

New Horizons in Melanoma Treatment: Targeting Molecular Pathways


Melanoma is the deadliest type of skin cancer. Over the past several decades, the incidence of melanoma has been increasing rapidly, especially in the southern and western United States (the so-called Sun Belt) and in subtropical countries such as Australia settled by fair-skinned peoples.1 In 2009, it was estimated that 60,000 patients would be diagnosed as having melanoma and 7,000 would die of this disease in the United States.2 Melanoma arises from transformed melanocytes, long-lived pigment-producing cells that reside within the basal epidermis. Melanocyte progenitors arise from the neural crest and migrate into the basal epidermis during embryonic development guided by c-KIT/stem cell factor signaling. Over the past few years, significant advances in our understanding of melanocyte biology and the role of protein kinases in melanoma have given rise to a wealth of therapeutic targets that are now in preclinical or clinical evaluation. These targets are different from the more traditional immunologic manipulations and cytotoxic chemotherapy that have been used to treat melanoma over the past 4 decades.3


Melanoma develops through the complex interaction of molecular pathways controlling cell proliferation, senescence, and apoptosis.4 The RAS-RAF-MAP kinase pathway seems to be the major signaling cascade involved in cell growth and proliferation in melanocytes. Growth factor receptors activate RAS, which in turn activates the downstream kinases RAF, MEK, and ERK (MAP kinase), leading to gene transcription and cellular proliferation.5 In melanoma, mutations in RAS occur almost exclusively in NRAS.6 These occur in approximately 20% of melanomas that develop on skin without evidence of sun-induced damage.7 Mutations in BRAF are common in melanoma and occur in 66% of cases.8 In addition, RAS activates phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K), which leads to the formation of the second messenger PIP3, leading to the activation of the protein AKT.9 The activation of AKT stimulates cell cycle progression, survival, metabolism, and migration through the phosphorylation of various downstream targets.10 PTEN is an important tumor suppressor that has a role in regulating the PI3K signaling cascade.11 PTEN dephosphorylates PIP3 and blocks the activation of AKT, suppressing signaling from growth factors. Activation of the PI3K pathway in melanoma is evidenced by the increasing expression of AKT as normal nevi progress to severely dysplastic nevi and melanoma.12 Most commonly, the aberrations in this pathway are the result of alterations in PTEN, and mutations or deletions of PTEN occur in about one-half of melanomas, while epigenetic silencing is found in a smaller proportion.1316 Mutations in AKT have also been found in a small proportion of melanoma cell lines,17 and increased expression of activated AKT is associated with tumor progression and shorter survival.12,18

CDKN2A is an important gene involved in melanoma pathogenesis. By alternative splicing, it encodes for 2 different proteins (INK4A and ARF).19 Through their interaction with cyclin D, cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6 inactivate the retinoblastoma (Rb) protein. Active hypophosphorylated Rb inhibits the growth factor E2F, blocking the expression of genes required for the progression of the cell from the G1 phase to the S1 phase. INK4A inhibits CDK4/6. Therefore, inhibition of INK4A allows cyclin D–CDK4/6 to inactivate Rb, leading to increased cell cycle activity. The second protein encoded by CDKN2A is ARF, which inhibits the mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) protein. In response to DNA damage, MDM2 inactivates and leads to the degradation of the p53 protein. This protein is important in the activation of DNA repair, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis. Therefore, in the absence of ARF, p53 levels are decreased, and the cellular response to DNA damage is blunted. In North America, germline mutations in CDKN2A occur in 45% of families that are prone to melanoma, and it was calculated that 67% of mutation carriers will develop melanoma by age 80 years.20 CDK4 is mutated in a small proportion of familial melanoma among families lacking a mutation in CDKN2A.21 CDKN2A is the most commonly deleted gene in nonfamilial primary melanoma, and cyclin D and CDK4 are amplified in specific subsets of melanoma.7

The microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) is a key controller of the melanocyte lineage and seems to have an important role in melanoma.22 Melanocortin (α-MSH) acts on its receptor, MC1R (a G protein–coupled receptor), leading to G protein–mediated activation of adenylate cyclase. This promotes the intracellular formation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate, leading to MITF transcription. In turn, MITF activates the transcription of proteins that are important in melanin production. A large-scale search for genomic changes in melanoma through single-nucleotide polymorphism analysis found that MITF amplification was more prevalent in metastatic disease and was correlated with decreased patient survival.23 Inducing overexpression of MITF with mutant BRAF led to the transformation of human melanocytes. Inducing interference of MITF function in vitro led to increased chemosensitivity to these melanoma cell lines, suggesting that MITF is a potential target for treatment.


A critical insight into melanoma biology by Curtin and colleagues7 showed that melanomas tend to have specific mutations based on the site of the primary tumor. They found that mutations in RAF and RAS seemed to be mutually exclusive. Mutations in BRAF were significantly more common in melanomas that were on skin without chronic sun-induced damage (assessed by the degree of solar elastosis on histopathologic examination). Most melanomas on skin without chronic sun-induced damage had mutations in BRAF. On the other hand, melanomas arising in chronically sun-damaged skin, mucosal surfaces, and acral skin had wild-type BRAF and RAS. This suggests that patients with melanoma that develops on areas only intermittently exposed to the sun may have an increased susceptibility to UV exposure, leading to a higher probably of acquiring BRAF mutations. On the other hand, patients who develop melanomas on chronically sun-exposed areas may have melanocytes that are less susceptible to mutations from UV light, requiring higher cumulative doses to induce melanoma. Curtin and colleagues went on to identify KIT (an essential gene for melanocyte survival and development)24,25 as an important oncogene in melanomas on chronically sun-damaged skin, the mucosa, and acral skin.26 Aberrations in KIT (mutations or copy number increases) were identified in 39% of mucosal melanomas, 36% of acral melanomas, 28% of melanomas on skin with chronic sun-induced damage, and 0% of melanomas on skin without chronic sun-induced damage.

Uveal melanomas arise from melanocytes in the uveal tract, including the iris, ciliary body, and choroid. Although accounting for only 5% of melanomas, uveal melanoma is an aggressive malignant neoplasm with a 5-year disease-specific survival rate of approximately 75%.27 Clinically, differences in behavior of uveal melanoma compared with cutaneous melanoma are evident. Unlike cutaneous melanoma, in which the most common site of distant metastases is the lung, the liver is the most commonly involved organ in uveal melanoma.28 Systemic treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma are ineffective, and the median survival is less than 6 months.29 Frequent somatic mutations in GNAQ, a gene encoding a G protein α subunit, have been demonstrated in uveal melanomas.30 None of these showed mutations in BRAF or NRAS. Our colleague Boris Bastian (personal communication, November 2009) identified GNA11, a second gene encoding another G protein α subunit, as frequently mutated in uveal melanoma and occurring mutually exclusively of GNAQ mutations. Altogether, mutations in GNAQ or GNA11 seem to occur in approximately 80% of uveal melanomas. The G protein–coupled receptors represent the largest family of cell surface molecules involved in signal transduction and have an important role in cell regulation, including proliferation, survival, and motility.31 GNAQ and GNA11 represent potential targets for uveal melanoma therapy.


The management of metastatic melanoma is challenging, and few patients experience durable responses to systemic treatment.32 The poor efficacy of available treatments has spurred the search for new modalities. Many of the therapies under development are based on a new understanding of the molecular pathways that govern melanoma pathogenesis and target specific steps in these pathways.


Of the RAF proteins, only BRAF is commonly mutated in cancer, including melanoma. More than 90% of mutations in BRAF result in a substitution of valine in place of glumatic acid in amino acid position 600, resulting in the BRAF V600E mutant kinase.8 This mutation confers increased kinase activity and can lead to melanocyte proliferation and senescence.33 Surprisingly, the BRAF V600E mutation is also commonly found in benign nevi.34 Overexpression of BRAF in mice leads to widespread melanocytic hyperplasia and progression to melanoma only on further loss of CDKN2A35 or PTEN.36 Over the past decade, several RAF inhibitors have been developed in the expectation of targeting this kinase in the treatment of melanoma. Sorafenib is a potent inhibitor of CRAF and to a lesser extent BRAF.37 In addition, sorafenib inhibits the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and KIT. A phase II trial of sorafenib alone showed little or no efficacy in patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma.38 Trials of sorafenib in combination with other agents have been likewise disappointing.39,40 This may result from weak BRAF inhibition by sorafenib at clinically achievable concentrations. PLX-4032 is a selective inhibitor of activated BRAF that translates to greatly increased selectivity for the BRAF V600E mutant kinase. This drug has shown great promise in a recent phase I trial, with 5 of 7 patients having melanoma who were positive for the mutation displaying tumor regression.41 A phase II trial of PLX-4032 in previously treated patients has completed accrual,42 and a randomized phase III trial comparing PLX-4032 with dacarbazine as a first-line treatment is recruiting patients.43


MEK is a downstream target of RAF in its signaling cascade, and there have been attempts to target this kinase in the treatment of melanoma. A phase I trial with the MEK inhibitor AZD6244 showed some promise in melanoma, with 6 of 11 patients showing tumor shrinkage.44 A subsequent phase II trial showed no benefit compared with temozolomide, a conventional first-line oral alkylating agent.45 In addition, there was no benefit in the BRAF mutant subgroup. However, of 6 patients with partial responses to the MEK inhibitor, 5 had a mutation in BRAF. In contrast, of 9 patients with partial responses to temozolomide, only 3 had BRAF mutations. This may suggest different efficacies in melanomas with different oncogenic alterations. Newer MEK inhibitors such as GSK1120212 (undergoing phase II evaluation)46 in BRAF mutant melanoma are also showing great promise.

Mammalian Target of Rapamycin

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a serine/threonine kinase that is regulated by nutrients and growth factors and functions in the control of protein translation, ribosome formation, autophagy, and metabolism.47 mTOR is thought to have a role in AKT activation, and increased activation of mTOR was found in 73% of melanoma cell lines.48 mTOR can be inhibited through its rapamycin binding domain, and several rapamycin analogues are in clinical trials. Sirolimus (CC1-779) has been tested in a melanoma phase II clinical trial with disappointing results.49 BEZ23, a molecule with dual mTOR and PI3K inhibition, has shown greater activity in preclinical melanoma models and is in phase I testing.50


Imatinib was the earliest KIT inhibitor tested in clinical trials. Two different phase II trials of imatinib yielded no treatment responses.51,52 Neither of these trials screened for mutations in KIT as part of the study inclusion protocol. The tumors in most of these patients showed minimal or no expression of KIT by immunohistochemistry. In a third more recent trial, the single partial responder who was treated with imatinib also happened to have the highest expression of KIT among all patients.53 Although a mutation in KIT was not found, the patient's primary melanoma was located on an acral surface, an area with frequent aberrations in KIT, including copy number increases. In 2 case reports, patients having metastatic melanoma with KIT mutations displayed dramatic responses to imatanib.54,55 A phase II trial of imatinib in patients screened for mutations or amplifications in KIT is ongoing.56 At the time of interim report, of 12 patients who received treatment (all with mutations in KIT), 2 had complete responses, 2 had partial responses, and 6 had stable disease, with disease progressing in only 2 patients. These encouraging data suggest that therapies may be ineffective in unselected patients but may be active in specific subsets of patients.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Family

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family consists of the following 4 receptors: EGFR (ErbB1), HER2 (ErbB2), HER3 (ErbB3), and HER4 (ErbB4).57 Several different ligands (including EGF-like molecules, transforming growth factor α, and neuregulins) activate the receptors, which then relay signals to the MAPK and PI3K pathways. ErbB1 is expressed in up to 96% of primary melanomas and in 90% of metastatic tumors.58 There are gains in chromosome 7 (where EGFR resides) in about 50% of melanomas, and increased copy number of chromosome 7 has been associated with poor prognosis in some studies.59,60 ErbB3 is also frequently expressed in melanoma and has been associated with tumor progression and a worse prognosis.6163 Evidence of the importance of EGFR signaling has been seen in melanoma cell lines61 and in animal models.64 A screen for somatic mutations in ErbB4 revealed that 19% of metastatic tumors harbored this mutation.65

The ErbB1 inhibitor erlotinib hydrochloride has been evaluated in a phase II trial of metastatic melanoma and showed no objective responses, but 4 of 14 patients had stable disease.66 The ErbB1/B2 inhibitor gefitinib was tested, and only 2 of 50 evaluable patients had a partial response.67 A trial of erlotinib hydrochloride in combination with the vascular endothelial growth factor A inhibitor bevacizumab showed greater efficacy, with 2 of 23 patients having partial responses lasting less than 6 months and 5 patients having stable disease lasting greater than 6 months.68 Toxic effects were greater with this combination, with 1 patient each experiencing myocardial infarction and bowel perforation.


MET is a receptor tyrosine kinase that is activated by its ligand hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). MET is essential for normal development and is important in cell migration, growth, survival, differentiation, and angiogenesis.69 In normal skin, MET is expressed on epithelial cells and melanocytes, whereas HGF is produced mainly by mesenchymal cells and interacts with MET in a paracrine manner.70 c-MET overexpression correlates with the invasive growth of melanoma cells, and many melanomas also secrete HGF, which can induce sustained activation of MET in an autocrine fashion.71 The c-MET inhibitor XL184 is in a phase II trial among patients with various solid tumors, including melanoma.72 XL880, a second MET inhibitor that also inhibits VEGFR2, has shown activity in patients with melanoma.73


Many exciting developments in melanoma therapy are underway. The realization that dysregulated protein kinases have a critical role in melanoma development and that inhibition of these can drastically increase the effectiveness of melanoma therapy is perhaps the greatest recent advance in melanoma research. Because distinct subtypes of melanoma show distinct patterns of kinase alterations, the first step in the emerging world of melanoma therapy is to accurately genotype a specimen, preferably from a metastatic lesion. Once the subtype of melanoma has been determined, BRAF or MEK inhibition may be the optimal choice for patients with BRAF V600E mutations. Those with NRAS mutations may benefit from MEK inhibitors, as may those with GNAQ and GNA11 mutations. Patients with KIT mutations are probably best treated with KIT inhibitors. The observed brief responses to the kinase inhibitors suggest that combinations of inhibitors—either vertically (such as BRAF plus MEK), horizontally (BRAF plus AKT), or in combination with chemotherapy—need to be investigated. For example, in vitro data suggest that resistance to BRAF inhibitors may develop as a result of the emergence of downstream mutations in MEK.74 Combined exposure to both a BRAF inhibitor and a MEK inhibitor suppressed the emergence of resistant colonies. Also, the role of VEGF inhibitors and CDK inhibitors in combination with MAP kinase pathway inhibitors needs to be evaluated and defined.

Questions remain regarding melanomagenesis in the approximately 40% of patients without known mutations in the known protein kinase signaling cascades, but research is under way in an attempt to identify kinase mutations in these patients as well. Although these developments have engendered great expectation in the melanoma community, the long-term outcome and safety profile of these drugs have not been demonstrated. For example, PLX4032 has been associated with secondary nonmelanoma skin cancers. In addition, notable advances in gene therapy, activated lymphocyte infusions, and novel immunomodulating monoclonal antibodies have brightened the horizon for melanoma therapy. It is anticipated that melanoma therapy in the future will be substantially more successful than it has been to date.


1. Lens M. B., Dawes M. Epidemiological trends of cutaneous malignant melanoma: incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Medscape Today. Available at: Accessed February 2, 2010.
2. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., Hao Y., Xu J., Thun M. J. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59((4)):225–249. [PubMed]
3. Demierre M. F., Sabel M. S., Margolin K. A., Daud A. I., Sondak V. K. State of the science 60th anniversary review: 60 years of advances in cutaneous melanoma epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment, as reported in the journal Cancer. Cancer. 2008;113((7)(suppl)):1728–1743. [PubMed]
4. Palmieri G., Capone M., Ascierto M. L., et al. Main roads to melanoma. J Transl Med. 2009;7:86. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Campbell S. L., Khosravi-Far R., Rossman K. L., Clark G. J., Der C. J. Increasing complexity of Ras signaling. Oncogene. 1998;17((11 Reviews)):1395–1413. [PubMed]
6. Tsao H., Zhang X., Fowlkes K., Haluska F. G. Relative reciprocity of NRAS and PTEN/MMAC1 alterations in cutaneous melanoma cell lines. Cancer Res. 2000;60((7)):1800–1804. [PubMed]
7. Curtin J. A., Fridlyand J., Kageshita T., et al. Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;353((20)):2135–2147. et al. [PubMed]
8. Davies H., Bignell G. R., Cox C., et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002;417((6892)):949–954. et al. [PubMed]
9. Engelman J. A., Luo J., Cantley L. C. The evolution of phosphatidylinositol 3–kinases as regulators of growth and metabolism. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7((8)):606–619. [PubMed]
10. Downward J. PI 3–kinase, Akt and cell survival. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2004;15((2)):177–182. [PubMed]
11. Cantley L. C., Neel B. G. New insights into tumor suppression: PTEN suppresses tumor formation by restraining the phosphoinositide 3–kinase/AKT pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96((8)):4240–4245. [PubMed]
12. Dhawan P., Singh A. B., Ellis D. L., Richmond A. Constitutive activation of Akt/protein kinase B in melanoma leads to up-regulation of nuclear factor–κB and tumor progression. Cancer Res. 2002;62((24)):7335–7342. [PubMed]
13. Reifenberger J., Wolter M., Boström J., et al. Allelic losses on chromosome arm 10q and mutation of the PTEN (MMAC1) tumour suppressor gene in primary and metastatic malignant melanomas. Virchows Arch. 2000;436((5)):487–493. et al. [PubMed]
14. Guldberg P., thor Straten P., Birck A., Ahrenkiel V., Kirkin A. F., Zeuthen J. Disruption of the MMAC1/PTEN gene by deletion or mutation is a frequent event in malignant melanoma. Cancer Res. 1997;57((17)):3660–3663. [PubMed]
15. Birck A., Ahrenkiel V., Zeuthen J., Hou-Jensen K., Guldberg P. Mutation and allelic loss of the PTEN/MMAC1 gene in primary and metastatic melanoma biopsies. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;114((2)):277–280. [PubMed]
16. Zhou X. P., Gimm O., Hampel H., Niemann T., Walker M. J., Eng C. Epigenetic PTEN silencing in malignant melanomas without PTEN mutation. Am J Pathol. 2000;157((4)):1123–1128. [PubMed]
17. Davies M. A., Stemke-Hale K., Tellez C., et al. A novel AKT3 mutation in melanoma tumours and cell lines. Br J Cancer. 2008;99((8)):1265–1268. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Dai D. L., Martinka M., Li G. Prognostic significance of activated Akt expression in melanoma: a clinicopathologic study of 292 cases. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23((7)):1473–1482. [PubMed]
19. Quelle D. E., Zindy F., Ashmun R. A., Sherr C. J. Alternative reading frames of the INK4a tumor suppressor gene encode two unrelated proteins capable of inducing cell cycle arrest. Cell. 1995;83((6)):993–1000. [PubMed]
20. Goldstein A. M., Chan M., Harland M., et al. Features associated with germline CDKN2A mutations: a GenoMEL study of melanoma-prone families from three continents. J Med Genet. 2007;44((2)):99–106. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Zuo L., Weger J., Yang Q., et al. Germline mutations in the p16INK4a binding domain of CDK4 in familial melanoma. Nat Genet. 1996;12((1)):97–99. et al. [PubMed]
22. Widlund H. R., Fisher D. E. Microphthalamia-associated transcription factor: a critical regulator of pigment cell development and survival. Oncogene. 2003;22((20)):3035–3041. [PubMed]
23. Garraway L. A., Widlund H. R., Rubin M. A., et al. Integrative genomic analyses identify MITF as a lineage survival oncogene amplified in malignant melanoma. Nature. 2005;436((7047)):117–122. et al. [PubMed]
24. Chabot B., Stephenson D. A., Chapman V. M., Besmer P., Bernstein A. The proto-oncogene c-kit encoding a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor maps to the mouse W locus. Nature. 1988;335((6185)):88–89. [PubMed]
25. Geissler E. N., Ryan M. A., Housman D. E. The dominant-white spotting (W) locus of the mouse encodes the c-kit proto-oncogene. Cell. 1988;55((1)):185–192. [PubMed]
26. Curtin J. A., Busam K., Pinkel D., Bastian B. C. Somatic activation of KIT in distinct subtypes of melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24((26)):4340–4346. [PubMed]
27. Chang A. E., Karnell L. H., Menck H. R. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society. The National Cancer Data Base report on cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma: a summary of 84,836 cases from the past decade. Cancer. 1998;83((8)):1664–1678. [PubMed]
28. Bakalian S., Marshall J. C., Logan P., et al. Molecular pathways mediating liver metastasis in patients with uveal melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14((4)):951–956. et al. [PubMed]
29. Singh A. D., Borden E. C. Metastatic uveal melanoma. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2005;18((1)):143–150, ix. [PubMed]
30. Van Raamsdonk C. D., Bezrookove V., Green G., et al. Frequent somatic mutations of GNAQ in uveal melanoma and blue naevi. Nature. 2009;457((7229)):599–602. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Dorsam R. T., Gutkind J. S. G-protein–coupled receptors and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7((2)):79–94. [PubMed]
32. Gogas H. J., Kirkwood J. M., Sondak V. K. Chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma: time for a change? Cancer. 2007;109((3)):455–464. [PubMed]
33. Dhomen N., Reis-Filho J. S., da Rocha Dias S., et al. Oncogenic Braf induces melanocyte senescence and melanoma in mice. Cancer Cell. 2009;15((4)):294–303. et al. [PubMed]
34. Taube J. M., Begum S., Shi C., Eshleman J. R., Westra W. H. Benign nodal nevi frequently harbor the activating V600E BRAF mutation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33((4)):568–571. [PubMed]
35. Goel V. K., Ibrahim N., Jiang G., et al. Melanocytic nevus-like hyperplasia and melanoma in transgenic BRAFV600E mice. Oncogene. 2009;28((23)):2289–2298. et al. [PubMed]
36. Dankort D., Curley D. P., Cartlidge R. A., et al. BRafV600E cooperates with Pten loss to elicit metastatic melanoma. Nat Genet. 2009;41((5)):544–552. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Wilhelm S. M., Carter C., Tang L., et al. BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004;64((19)):7099–7109. et al. [PubMed]
38. Eisen T., Ahmad T., Flaherty K. T., et al. Sorafenib in advanced melanoma: a phase II randomised discontinuation trial analysis. Br J Cancer. 2006;95((5)):581–586. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. McDermott D. F., Sosman J. A., Gonzalez R., et al. Double-blind randomized phase II study of the combination of sorafenib and dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma: a report from the 11715 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26((13)):2178–2185. et al. [PubMed]
40. Kim K. B., Davies M. A., Papadopoulos N. E., et al. Phase I/II study of the combination of sorafenib and temsirolimus in patients with metastatic melanoma [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27((15)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 9026.
41. Flaherty K., Puzanov I., Sosman J., et al. Phase I study of PLX4032: proof of concept for V600E BRAF mutation as a therapeutic target in human cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27((15)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 9000.
42. A study of RO5185426 in previously treated patients with metastatic melanoma. Available at: Accessed January 30, 2010.
43. A study of RO5185426 in comparison with dacarbazine in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma. Available at: Accessed January 30, 2010.
44. Adjei A. A., Cohen R. B., Franklin W., et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26((13)):2139–2146. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Dummer R., Robert C., Chapman P. B., et al. AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) vs temozolomide (TMZ) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma: an open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase II study [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26((15)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 9033.
46. Brief title: study to determine effectiveness of GSK1120212 in BRAF mutation–positive melanoma subjects previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Available at: Accessed February 2, 2010.
47. Ibrahim N., Haluska F. G. Molecular pathogenesis of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:551–579. [PubMed]
48. Karbowniczek M., Spittle C. S., Morrison T., Wu H., Henske E. P. mTOR is activated in the majority of malignant melanomas. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128((4)):980–987. [PubMed]
49. Margolin K., Longmate J., Baratta T., et al. CCI-779 in metastatic melanoma: a phase II trial of the California Cancer Consortium. Cancer. 2005;104((5)):1045–1048. et al. [PubMed]
50. Maira S. M., Stauffer F., Brueggen J., et al. Identification and characterization of NVP-BEZ235, a new orally available dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor with potent in vivo antitumor activity. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7((7)):1851–1863. et al. [PubMed]
51. Ugurel S., Hildenbrand R., Zimpfer A., et al. Lack of clinical efficacy of imatinib in metastatic melanoma. Br J Cancer. 2005;92((8)):1398–1405. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. Wyman K., Atkins M. B., Prieto V., et al. Multicenter phase II trial of high-dose imatinib mesylate in metastatic melanoma: significant toxicity with no clinical efficacy. Cancer. 2006;106((9)):2005–2011. et al. [PubMed]
53. Kim K. B., Eton O., Davis D. W., et al. Phase II trial of imatinib mesylate in patients with metastatic melanoma. Br J Cancer. 2008;99((5)):734–740. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. Hodi F. S., Friedlander P., Corless C. L., et al. Major response to imatinib mesylate in KIT-mutated melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26((12)):2046–2051. et al. [PubMed]
55. Lutzky J., Bauer J., Bastian B. C. Dose-dependent, complete response to imatinib of a metastatic mucosal melanoma with a K642E KIT mutation. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2008;21((4)):492–493. [PubMed]
56. Carvajal R. D., Chapman P. B., Wolchok J. D., et al. A phase II study of imatinib mesylate (IM) for patients with advanced melanoma harboring somatic alterations of KIT [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27((15)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 9001.
57. Yarden Y. The EGFR family and its ligands in human cancer: signalling mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37((suppl 4)):S3–S8. [PubMed]
58. Sparrow L. E., Heenan P. J. Differential expression of epidermal growth factor receptor in melanocytic tumours demonstrated by immunohistochemistry and mRNA in situ hybridization. Australas J Dermatol. 1999;40((1)):19–24. [PubMed]
59. Trent J. M., Meyskens F. L., Salmon S. E., et al. Relation of cytogenetic abnormalities and clinical outcome in metastatic melanoma [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 1990;323(18):1283]. N Engl J Med. 1990;322((21)):1508–1511. et al. [PubMed]
60. Rákosy Z., Vízkeleti L., Ecsedi S., et al. EGFR gene copy number alterations in primary cutaneous malignant melanomas are associated with poor prognosis. Int J Cancer. 2007;121((8)):1729–1737. et al. [PubMed]
61. Ueno Y., Sakurai H., Tsunoda S., et al. Heregulin-induced activation of ErbB3 by EGFR tyrosine kinase activity promotes tumor growth and metastasis in melanoma cells. Int J Cancer. 2008;123((2)):340–347. et al. [PubMed]
62. Djerf E. A., Trinks C., Abdiu A., Thunell L. K., Hallbeck E. L., Waltz T. M. ErbB receptor tyrosine kinases contribute to proliferation of malignant melanoma cells: inhibition by gefitinib (ZD1839). Melanoma Res. 2009;19((3)):156–166. [PubMed]
63. Buac K., Xu M., Cronin J., Weeraratna A. T., Hewitt S. M., Pavan W. J. NRG1/ERBB3 signaling in melanocyte development and melanoma: inhibition of differentiation and promotion of proliferation. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2009;22((6)):773–784. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Wellbrock C., Gómez A., Schartl M. Signal transduction by the oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinase Xmrk in melanoma formation of Xiphophorus. Pigment Cell Res. 1997;10((1–2)):34–40. [PubMed]
65. Prickett T. D., Agrawal N. S., Wei X., et al. Analysis of the tyrosine kinome in melanoma reveals recurrent mutations in ERBB4. Nat Genet. 2009;41((10)):1127–1132. et al. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. Wyman K., Kelley M., Puzanov I., et al. Phase II study of erlotinib given daily for patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24((18)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 18002.
67. Patel S., Bedikian A., Kim K., et al. A phase II study of gefitinib in patients with metastatic melanoma [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27((15)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 9057.
68. Wyman K., Spigel D., Puzanov I., et al. A multicenter phase II study of erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25((18)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 8539.
69. Gentile A., Trusolino L., Comoglio P. M. The Met tyrosine kinase receptor in development and cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2008;27((1)):85–94. [PubMed]
70. Hsu M. Y., Meier F., Herlyn M. Melanoma development and progression: a conspiracy between tumor and host. Differentiation. 2002;70((9–10)):522–536. [PubMed]
71. Economou M. A., All-Ericsson C., Bykov V., et al. Receptors for the liver synthesized growth factors IGF-1 and HGF/SF in uveal melanoma: intercorrelation and prognostic implications. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86((thesis 4)):20–25. et al. [PubMed]
72. Study of XL184 in adults with advanced malignancies. Available at: Accessed January 31, 2010.
73. Eder J. P., Appleman L., Heath E., et al. A phase I study of a novel spectrum selective kinase inhibitor (SSKI), XL880, administered orally in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors (STs) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24((18)(suppl)) et al. Abstract 3041.
74. Emery C. M., Vijayendran K. G., Zipser M. C., et al. MEK1 mutations confer resistance to MEK and B-RAF inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106((48)):20411–20416. et al. [PubMed]

Articles from The Ochsner Journal are provided here courtesy of Ochsner Clinic Foundation