Search

Abstract Avapritinib is the only potent and selective inhibitor approved for the treatment of D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), the most common primary mutation of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRA). The approval was based on the NAVIGATOR trial, which revealed overall response rates of more than 90%. Despite this transformational activity, patients eventually progress, mostly due to acquired resistance mutations or following discontinuation due to neuro-cognitive side effects. These patients have no therapeutic alternative and face a dismal prognosis. Notable, little is known about this drug’s binding mode and its medicinal chemistry development, which is instrumental for the development of the next generation of drugs. Against this background, we solve the crystal structures of avapritinib in complex with wild-type and mutant PDGFRA and stem cell factor receptor (KIT), which provide evidence and understanding of inhibitor binding and lead to the identification of a sub-pocket (Gα-pocket). We utilize this information to design, synthesize and characterize avapritinib derivatives for the determination of key pharmacophoric features to overcome drug resistance and limit potential blood-brain barrier penetration.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), driven by KIT and PDGFRA mutations, are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have advanced treatment, resistance mutations and off-target toxicity limit their efficacy. This study develops covalent TKIs targeting drug-resistant GIST through structure-based design, synthesis, and biological evaluation. SAR studies provided key insights into mutant KIT and PDGFRA interactions, and the first crystal structure of PDGFRA bound to a covalent inhibitor is reported. These findings highlight the promise of covalent inhibitors for overcoming resistance and advancing safer, more effective therapies for advanced GIST.

Purpose: Imatinib resistance in GI stromal tumors (GISTs) is primarily caused by secondary KIT mutations, and clonal heterogeneity of these secondary mutations represents a major treatment obstacle. KIT inhibitors used after imatinib have clinical activity, albeit with limited benefit. Ripretinib is a potent inhibitor of secondary KIT mutations in the activation loop (AL). However, clinical benefit in fourth line remains limited and the molecular mechanisms of ripretinib resistance are largely unknown., Patients and Methods: Progressing lesions of 25 patients with GISTs refractory to ripretinib were sequenced for KIT resistance mutations. Resistant genotypes were validated and characterized using novel cell line models and in silico modeling., Results: GISTs progressing on ripretinib were enriched for secondary mutations in the ATP-binding pocket (AP), which frequently occur in cis with preexisting AL mutations, resulting in highly resistant AP/AL genotypes. AP/AL mutations were rarely observed in a cohort of progressing GIST samples from the preripretinib era but represented 50% of secondary KIT mutations in patients with tumors resistant to ripretinib. In GIST cell lines harboring secondary KIT AL mutations, the sole genomic escape mechanisms during ripretinib drug selection were AP/AL mutations. Ripretinib and sunitinib synergize against mixed clones with secondary AP or AL mutants but do not suppress clones with AP/AL genotypes., Conclusion: Our findings underscore that KIT remains the central oncogenic driver even in late lines of GIST therapy. KIT-inhibitor combinations may suppress resistance because of secondary KIT mutations. However, the emergence of KIT AP/AL mutations after ripretinib treatment calls for new strategies in the development of next-generation KIT inhibitors.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in GIST is of interest for the detection of heterogeneous resistance mutations and treatment monitoring. However, methodologies for use in a local setting are not standardized and are error-prone and difficult to interpret. We established a workflow to evaluate routine tumor tissue NGS (Illumina-based next generation sequencing) panels and pipelines for ctDNA sequencing in an academic setting. Regular blood collection (Sarstedt) EDTA tubes were sufficient for direct processing whereas specialized tubes (STRECK) were better for transportation. Mutation detection rate was higher in automatically extracted (AE) than manually extracted (ME) samples. Sensitivity and specificity for specific mutation detection was higher using digital droplet (dd)PCR compared to NGS. In a retrospective analysis of NGS and clinical data (133 samples from 38 patients), cfDNA concentration correlated with tumor load and mutation detection. A clinical routine pipeline and a novel research pipeline yielded different results, but known and resistance-mediating mutations were detected by both and correlated with the resistance spectrum of TKIs used. In conclusion, NGS routine panel analysis was not sensitive and specific enough to replace solid biopsies in GIST. However, more precise methods (hybridization capture NGS, ddPCR) may comprise important research tools to investigate resistance. Future clinical trials need to compare methodology and protocols.