Background: Little exists currently in research about the mechanisms of resistance of ALK inhibitors in inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma. It is known, however, that ALK gene rearrangements are common in inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors, similar to non-small cell lung cancer. In roughly 50% of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors, gene rearrangement has been found to occur on chromosome 2 at band 2p23. In non-small cell lung cancer, it has been shown that about a third of patients who progress on the first generation ALK inhibitor, crizotinib develops mutations in the ALK kinase domain. The remaining two-thirds of patients tend to develop amplification of ALK or activation of alternative signaling pathways. Chromoplexy has also been described as a mechanism of resistance, where multiple closed chain rearrangements cause loss-of-function of tumor suppressor genes and gain-in-function of oncogenic fusions. Partner genes that have been identified in IMTs are tropomyosin 3 (TPM3), tropomyosin 4 (TPM4), clathrin heavy chain (CLTC), Ran-binding protein 2 (RANBP2), cysteinyl-tRNA synthetase (CARS), 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase/IMP cyclohydrolase (ATIC), and SEC31L1. All are active promoters for the fusion gene, in response to NPM binding. Several inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor case reports indicated that fusion of ALK and RANBP2 led to a more aggressive clinical course. Although the majority of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor case reports have utilized first and second generation ALK inhibitors, all generations of ALK inhibitors have demonstrated some ability to impair disease progression and extend life expectancy. However, at some point in the course of therapy with each generation of ALK inhibitor, resistance ultimately developed. In order to better understand the pharmacology and resistance patterns behind three generations of ALK inhibitors, we sought to examine a patient with metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1-rearranged inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma to the brain. We also explored the similarities and differences of this clinical case to other inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma case reports involving the use of ALK inhibitors.
Case report: A rare case of pulmonary IMS with ALK-1 gene rearrangement and multiple brain metastases responded to three generations of ALK inhibitors. However, similar to other case reports, due to the development of resistance and recurrence, the patient eventually succumbed to the disease.
Conclusions: ALK inhibitors are beneficial in the temporary prevention of progression of disease in patients with inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors. In this case, due to the inability to reveal the fusion partner in this patient via DNA sequencing, it is unknown exactly if that partner was RANBP2 or another ALK partner gene. Brain biopsy tissue was also unobtainable during sequence of ALK due to risk versus benefit, which would have provided insight as which type of ALK resistance mutations the patient was developing. It is likely that this patient had some form of chromoplexy occurring.
Keywords: ALK inhibitors; alectinib; ceritinib; crizotinib; inflammatory myoblastic sarcoma; lorlatinib.