Search

Oncogenic gene fusions are hybrid genes that result from structural DNA rearrangements, leading to deregulated activity. Fusions involving the neuregulin-1 gene (NRG1) result in ErbB-mediated pathway activation and therefore present a rational candidate for targeted treatment. The most frequently reported NRG1 fusion is CD74-NRG1 , which most commonly occurs in patients with invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas (IMAs) of the lung, although several other NRG1 fusion partners have been identified in patients with lung cancer, including ATP1B1 , SDC4 , and RBPMS. NRG1 fusions are also present in patients with other solid tumors, such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. In general, NRG1 fusions are rare across different types of cancer, with a reported incidence of <1%, with the notable exception of IMA, which represents ≈2%–10% of lung adenocarcinomas and has a reported incidence of ≈10%–30% for NRG1 fusions. A substantial proportion (≈20%) of NRG1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer cases are nonmucinous adenocarcinomas. ErbB-targeted treatments, such as afatinib, a pan-ErbB tyrosine kinase inhibitor, are potential therapeutic strategies to address unmet treatment needs in patients harboring NRG1 fusions. • NRG1 fusions result in ErbB-mediated pathway activation and present a rational therapeutic target. • ErbB-targeted treatments, such as afatinib, can be effective therapeutic options in tumors harboring NRG1 fusions. • The incidence of NRG1 fusion-driven tumors is low, occurring in <1% of cancers, but is highest (≈10-30%) in invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for resected stage II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this population-based study was to identify factors that predict for receiving adjuvant therapy and to assess the effect of delayed administration and dose reduction on survival. Materials and methods The British Columbia Cancer Agency provides cancer care to 4.6 million individuals across a large and varied geographical area. A retrospective review was conducted of all referred patients with resected stage II NSCLC between 2005 and 2010. Baseline characteristics, systemic therapy details and outcomes were recorded. Results Of 258 stage II NSCLC patients, 158 received adjuvant chemotherapy (61%). No-adjuvant versus adjuvant population: men 52%/57%, median age 67/62, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≤ 1 55%/75%, Charlson comorbidity score (CCS) ≤ 1 61%/74%, pneumonectomy 11%/26%. In patients who received chemotherapy, treatment details were: cisplatin/carboplatin based 81%/19%, median cycles delivered 4, median time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy 8 weeks, 72% received ≥ 80% (cisplatin < 256 mg/m 2 and carboplatin < AUC 19.2) total planned dose. On multivariate analysis younger age, better ECOG and pneumonectomy were predictive of adjuvant treatment. Overall survival of adjuvant-treated patients was inferior for those with CCS ≥ 2, age ≥ 70 and reduced dose intensity on multivariate analysis. The surgery to chemotherapy interval did not affect overall survival. Conclusions Pneumonectomy and factors associated with better functional status predicted for receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. For patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy the total platinum dose given affected survival but time from surgery did not. A higher platinum dose delivery was important in maintaining the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected stage II NSCLC in this retrospective population-based study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Systemic therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the standard of care. The time of treatment administration has not been examined in the metastatic setting. A ‘watch and wait’ approach for the initiation of chemotherapy is sometimes used in clinical practice, either because of patient preference, presumed indolent disease behaviour, upfront radiotherapy or other interventions. We propose to evaluate the effect of a watch and wait approach on systemic treatment deliverability and patients' outcomes in a population-based study. Materials and methods A retrospective analysis of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients referred to medical oncology at the British Columbia Cancer Agency in 2009 was conducted. We defined the following: immediate chemotherapy (ICT) – chemotherapy ≤8 weeks from medical oncology consult; watch and wait chemotherapy (WWC) – initial observation with chemotherapy > 8 weeks from medical oncology consultation; watch and wait missed (WWM) – watch and wait patients who did not receive chemotherapy; best supportive care (BSC) – patients deemed chemotherapy ineligible. Statistical methods included Kaplan–Meier analysis, Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modelling. Results In total, 744 patients were seen by medical oncology; 355 (48%) received ICT, 173 (23%) watch and wait and 216 (29%) BSC. Of the 173 patients on a watch and wait approach, 42% missed an opportunity for chemotherapy due to poor performance status (50%), death (49%) and comorbidity (1%). The median overall survival was as follows: watch and wait 11.5 months, ICT 12.8 months and BSC 4.3 months ( P < 0.0001). Controlling for confounding factors (age, gender, performance status), overall survival was longer in WWC (hazard ratio 0.73, confidence interval 0.81–1.07, P = 0.023) and lower in WWM (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.27–2.22, P < 0.0001), compared with ICT. Conclusions A significant proportion of watch and wait patients never receive systemic therapy, predominantly due to a decline in performance status. Patients in the ICT group were younger, had a better performance status and had non-squamous histology compared with the watch and wait group. The overall survival was longer in the patients who received ICT versus watch and wait. The watch and wait strategy is associated with a high risk of missing the opportunity for any chemotherapy and should be judiciously implemented only in carefully selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In AURA3 (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response in patients with EGFR T790M advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and progression on prior EGFR-TKI treatment. We report the final AURA3 overall survival (OS) analysis. Adult patients were randomized 2 : 1 to osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin/cisplatin (platinum–pemetrexed) intravenously, every 3 weeks (≤6 cycles). Patients could crossover to osimertinib on progression confirmed by blinded independent central review. OS and safety were secondary end points. A total of 279 patients were randomly assigned to receive osimertinib and 140 to platinum–pemetrexed (136 received treatment). At data cut-off (DCO; 15 March 2019), 188 patients (67%) receiving osimertinib versus 93 (66%) receiving platinum–pemetrexed had died. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–1.12; P = 0.277]; the median OS was 26.8 months (95% CI 23.5–31.5) versus 22.5 months (95% CI 20.2–28.8) for osimertinib and platinum–pemetrexed, respectively. The estimated 24- and 36-month survival was 55% versus 43% and 37% versus 30%, respectively. After crossover adjustment, there was an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.18–1.6). Time to first subsequent therapy or death showed a clinically meaningful advantage toward osimertinib (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16–0.28; P < 0.001). At DCO, 99/136 (73%) patients in the platinum–pemetrexed arm had crossed over to osimertinib, 66/99 (67%) of whom had died. The most common adverse events possibly related to study treatment were diarrhea (32%; grade ≥3, 1%) and rash (grouped term; 32%; grade ≥3, <1%) in the osimertinib arm, versus nausea (47%; grade ≥3, 3%) in the platinum–pemetrexed arm. In patients with T790M advanced NSCLC, no statistically significant benefit in OS was observed for osimertinib versus platinum–pemetrexed, which possibly reflects the high crossover rate of patients from platinum–pemetrexed to osimertinib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02151981 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02151981. • Median OS with osimertinib was 26.8 months versus 22.5 months with platinum–pemetrexed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67–1.12; P = 0.277). • The lack of a significant survival benefit could reflect high percentage (73%) of platinum–pemetrexed to osimertinib crossover. • Analysis of OS adjusted for crossover showed an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.18–1.60). • Among patients receiving subsequent anticancer therapy, platinum chemotherapy was the most common after osimertinib (65%). • Grade ≥3 (possibly treatment-related) adverse events were observed less frequently with osimertinib (9% versus 34% with platinum–pemetrexed). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In LUX-Lung 7, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) versus gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present primary analysis of mature overall survival (OS) data. Patients and methods: LUX-Lung 7 assessed afatinib 40 mg/day versus gefitinib 250 mg/day in treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion/L858R). Primary OS analysis was planned after ~213 OS events and&#880532-month follow-up. OS was analysed by a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation type and baseline brain metastases. Results: Two-hundred and twenty-six OS events had occurred at the data cut-off (8 April 2016). After a median follow-up of 42.6 months, median OS (afatinib versus gefitinib) was 27.9 versus 24.5 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.12, P=0.2580]. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed similar OS trends (afatinib versus gefitinib) in patients with exon 19 deletion (30.7 versus 26.4 months; HR, 0.83, 95% CI 0.58-1.17, P=0.2841) and L858R (25.0 versus 21.2 months; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.36, P=0.6585) mutations. Most patients (afatinib, 72.6%; gefitinib, 76.8%) had at least one subsequent systemic anti-cancer treatment following discontinuation of afatinib/gefitinib; 20 (13.7%) and 23 (15.2%) patients received a thirdgeneration EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib. Conclusion: In LUX-Lung 7, there was no significant difference in OS with afatinib versus gefitinib. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A patient suffering from metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment-related toxicity and resistance to standard chemotherapy and radiation was assessed as part of a personalized oncogenomics initiative to derive potential alternative therapeutic strategies. Patients and methods: Whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing was used to interrogate a metastatic tumor refractory to standard treatments of a patient with mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Results: Integrative genomic analysis indicated overexpression of the AP-1 transcriptional complex suggesting experimental therapeutic rationales, including blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. This led to the repurposing of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, as an anticancer therapy, resulting in the patient experiencing a dramatic and durable response. Conclusions: This case highlights the utility of comprehensive integrative genomic profiling and bioinformatics analysis to provide hypothetical rationales for personalized treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This manuscript reports on a prospective, randomized study of cetuximab plus/minus a small molecule PI3K inhibitor (PX-866) targeting the protein product of PIK3CA, the gene with the highest rate of activating mutations in head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). The combination of PX-866 and cetuximab failed to improve outcomes compared with cetuximab alone in patients with advanced HNSCC.Background The phosphotidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/serine–threonine kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin signaling pathway is frequently altered in head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). PX-866 is an oral, irreversible, pan-isoform inhibitor of PI3K. A phase I trial demonstrated tolerability of this combination. This randomized phase II study evaluated PX-866 combined with cetuximab in patients with advanced, refractory HNSCC. Methods Patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who had received at least one and no more than two prior systemic treatment regimens were randomized (1 : 1) to cetuximab with or without PX-866 (8 mg p.o. daily; arms A and B, respectively). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and correlation of key biomarkers with efficacy outcomes. Results Eighty-three patients were enrolled. There was a similar response rate between arms (10% versus 7%). Of patients for whom tissue was assessable, 57% were human papillomavirus (HPV) positive. Median PFS was 80 days in both arms and there was no difference in OS between the two arms (211 versus 256 days). Overall toxicity was higher in arm A compared with arm B, especially in terms of nausea (53% versus 23%), vomiting (45% versus 15%), fatigue (43% versus 23%), diarrhea (40% versus 21%), and hypokalemia (25% versus 10%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were infrequent, but more common in the combination arm although without a specific pattern. PIK3CA mutations were observed in 17% of the cases assessed, and PTEN loss was infrequently observed. Conclusion The addition of PX-866 to cetuximab did not improve PFS, RR, or OS in patients with advanced, refractory HNSCC enrolled without molecular preselection. In this contemporary cohort, HPV-positive patients comprised the majority, and neither HPV-positive nor HPV-negative patients derived clinical benefit for the addition of cetuximab plus PX-866. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency and prognostic significance of beta-catenin expression in a cohort of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.Methods: Tissue microarrays were constructed using clinically annotated formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from individuals diagnosed with NSCLC who underwent surgical resection with curative intent and had beta-catenin expression status determined by immunohistochemistry.Results: Negative beta-catenin expression was seen in 28% (103/370) of NSCLC cases and was prognostic of a reduced overall patient survival (P = .008) and also was significantly correlated with the presence of lymphatic invasion (P = .015). In multivariate analysis, the loss of beta-catenin expression retained independent prognostic significance and showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.18 (confidence interval, 1.46-6.91, P = .004) for reduced patient survival when adjusting for the presence of lymphatic invasion, tumor grade, nodal status, and tumor stage.Conclusions: Beta-catenin represents an important prognostic marker in individuals diagnosed with surgically resectable NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In AURA3 (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a 3rd-generation EGFR-TKI, significantly prolonged progressionfree survival (PFS) and improved response rate vs plt-pem in pts with centrally confirmed EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC and progression on a prior EGFR-TKI. Here we report mature OS data. Methods Adult pts were randomised 2:1 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or intravenous pem (500 mg per m2 of body surface area) + carboplatin (target area under the curve 5)/cisplatin (75 mg per m2), every 3 weeks, ≤6 cycles. Treatment beyond progression (RECIST 1.1) was allowed if clinical benefit continued. Pts receiving plt-pem could cross over to osimertinib on disease progression. Asymptomatic CNS metastases were allowed. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. OS and safety are reported as secondary endpoints. Data cut-off (DCO): 15 March 2019. Results In total, 419 pts were randomised (osimertinib, n = 279; plt-pem, n = 140); 99 pts (71%) crossed over to osimertinib from plt-pem. At DCO, 188 pts (67%) in the osimertinib arm vs 93 pts (66%) in the plt-pem arm had died, including 66/99 (67%) crossover pts; median OS 26.8 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.5, 31.5) vs 22.5 mo (95% CI 20.2, 28.8) respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% CI 0.67, 1.12; p = 0.277); survival rate at 24 mo was 55% vs 43% and at 36 mo was 37% vs 30%. Time to first subsequent treatment showed a large, clinically meaningful numerical advantage towards osimertinib, HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.16, 0.28; p < 0.001); time to second subsequent treatment, HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.11; p = 0.263). In both arms, 99% pts had any adverse event (AE). Any AE grade ≥3 causally related to study treatment was 9% vs 34% for osimertinib and plt-pem respectively. Most common AEs were diarrhoea, 44% (grade ≥3, 1%), and nausea, 49% (grade ≥3, 4%), with osimertinib and plt-pem respectively. Conclusions A numerical advantage in OS was observed for pts receiving osimertinib vs plt-pem, with the majority of pts in the plt-pem arm having crossed over to osimertinib. The safety profile of osimertinib remains consistent with previous findings. Clinical trial identification NCT02151981. Editorial acknowledgement Laura Crocker, BMedSci, of iMed Comms, an Ashfield Company, who provided medical writing support funded by AstraZeneca. Legal entity responsible for the study AstraZeneca. Funding AstraZeneca. Disclosure Y-L. Wu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. T.S.K. Mok: Honoraria (self): ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd. Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. LTD. AstraZeneca (before 1/1/19), Bayer, BI, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, Celgene, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, Hengrui Therapeutics Inc. Ignyt; Advisory / Consultancy: ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd. Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. LTD. AstraZeneca (before 1/1/19), Bayer, BI, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, Celgene, Cirina, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, geneDecode Co. Ltd. (un; Leadership role: AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ, XCovery; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Shareholder: Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd. Stock option: Clearbridge Biomedics (now Biolidics Ltd.), Loxo-Oncology, OrigiMed Co. Ltd. Virtus Medical Group; Full / Part-time employment: The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Officer / Board of Directors: Remunerated: AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med Non-remunerated: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG) Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF) Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CS. J-Y. Han: Honoraria (self): Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly; Research grant / Funding (self): Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda. M-J. Ahn: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Alpha Pharmaceutical, Takeda. S.S. Ramalingam: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, Tesaro; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tesaro, Advaxis, Takeda. S-W. Kim: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca. F.A. Shepherd: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AstraZeneca. J. Laskin: Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer. H. Akamatsu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution): Chugai; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim. W-C. Su: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim. T. John: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Ignyta, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer. M. Sebastian: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly. H. Mann: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. M. Miranda: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. G. Laus: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. Y. Rukazenkov: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. V. Papadimitrakopoulou: Honoraria (self): F Hoffman-La Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Nektar Therapeutics, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Arrys Therapeutics, Merck&Co, LOXO Oncology, Araxes Pharma, F.Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd, Janssen Research Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly &Co, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Takeda ; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eli Lilly &Co, Novartis, Merck, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffman-La Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Checkmate, Incyte. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuregulin-1 gene (NRG1) fusions function as oncogenic drivers across various solid tumors, most notably in invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (IMA) of the lung, and represent a rational potential target for treatment. NRG1 is a growth factor, which binds to ErbB3 or ErbB4 inducing the formation of ErbB3 or 4-containing homo- or heterodimers and activating downstream ErbB-family signaling pathways. Therefore, the ErbB-family blocker afatinib may be a potential treatment option for patients with solid tumors harboring NRG1 fusions. Methods We report a case series of all known patients with NRG1 fusion-positive solid tumors who were treated with afatinib; afatinib therapy is ongoing for some patients. Results To date, 18 patients with NRG1 fusion-positive solid tumors have been treated with afatinib (Table). These include 12 cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 7 of which were reported as IMA), 5 cases of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer (primarily pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [PDAC]) and 1 case of ovarian cancer. Various NRG1 fusion partners were identified, most commonly CD74 in patients with NSCLC (n = 7; 58%) and ATP1B1 in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3; 60%). Best response with afatinib among patients with NSCLC was partial response (PR) lasting 24 months (10 months among those specifically with IMA of the lung). Patients with PDAC experienced PR of 3 and 5.5 months' duration, and one patient has an ongoing PR after 7 months. One patient with cholangiocarcinoma had a PR lasting 8 months; another patient with ovarian cancer had stable disease (SD) of unknown duration. Conclusions Afatinib is a potential treatment option for some patients with solid tumors harboring NRG1 fusions. The efficacy and safety of afatinib will be evaluated in ongoing/planned prospective non-randomized clinical trials of targeted drugs in patients with advanced cancer with potentially actionable genomic variants (NCT02925234 and NCT02693535). Table: 63O Tumor type    NRG1 fusion partner  Best response, physician assessed  Duration of response, mos  Refs  NSCLC  IMA  CD74  PR  10  1      CD74  PR  6.5  2      CD74  PD*    3      CD74  SD  3  3      SDC4  PD    3      CD74  PD    3      CD74  PR  -  4    ADC  SLC3A2  PR  12  1      SDC4  PR  12  5      -  PR  24  6      CD74  PR  14+  4, 6      SDC4  SD  4  6  GI  PDAC  ATP1B1  PR  3  7      ATP1B1  PR  5.5  8      APP  PR  7+  6, 8    Cholangiocarcinoma  ATP1B1  PR  8  5    Colorectal (KRASm +ve)  POMK  SD  4  9  Ovarian    CLU  SD  -  10  Tumor type    NRG1 fusion partner  Best response, physician assessed  Duration of response, mos  Refs  NSCLC  IMA  CD74  PR  10  1      CD74  PR  6.5  2      CD74  PD*    3      CD74  SD  3  3      SDC4  PD    3      CD74  PD    3      CD74  PR  -  4    ADC  SLC3A2  PR  12  1      SDC4  PR  12  5      -  PR  24  6      CD74  PR  14+  4, 6      SDC4  SD  4  6  GI  PDAC  ATP1B1  PR  3  7      ATP1B1  PR  5.5  8      APP  PR  7+  6, 8    Cholangiocarcinoma  ATP1B1  PR  8  5    Colorectal (KRASm +ve)  POMK  SD  4  9  Ovarian    CLU  SD  -  10  * PD on an anti-ErbB3 mAb prior to afatinib. -, not reported; ADC, adenocarcinoma; PD, progressive disease.1Gay. JTO 2017, 2Cheema. JTO 2017, 3Drilon. Cancer Discov 2018, 4Duruisseaux. WCLC 2019, 5Jones. Ann Oncol 2017, 6Laskin. JSMO 2019, 7Heining. Cancer Discov 2018, 8Jones. Clin Cancer Res 2019, 9Weinberg. ESMO GI 2019, 10Murumagi. AACR 2019. Table: 63O Tumor type    NRG1 fusion partner  Best response, physician assessed  Duration of response, mos  Refs  NSCLC  IMA  CD74  PR  10  1      CD74  PR  6.5  2      CD74  PD*    3      CD74  SD  3  3      SDC4  PD    3      CD74  PD    3      CD74  PR  -  4    ADC  SLC3A2  PR  12  1      SDC4  PR  12  5      -  PR  24  6      CD74  PR  14+  4, 6      SDC4  SD  4  6  GI  PDAC  ATP1B1  PR  3  7      ATP1B1  PR  5.5  8      APP  PR  7+  6, 8    Cholangiocarcinoma  ATP1B1  PR  8  5    Colorectal (KRASm +ve)  POMK  SD  4  9  Ovarian    CLU  SD  -  10  Tumor type    NRG1 fusion partner  Best response, physician assessed  Duration of response, mos  Refs  NSCLC  IMA  CD74  PR  10  1      CD74  PR  6.5  2      CD74  PD*    3      CD74  SD  3  3      SDC4  PD    3      CD74  PD    3      CD74  PR  -  4    ADC  SLC3A2  PR  12  1      SDC4  PR  12  5      -  PR  24  6      CD74  PR  14+  4, 6      SDC4  SD  4  6  GI  PDAC  ATP1B1  PR  3  7      ATP1B1  PR  5.5  8      APP  PR  7+  6, 8    Cholangiocarcinoma  ATP1B1  PR  8  5    Colorectal (KRASm +ve)  POMK  SD  4  9  Ovarian    CLU  SD  -  10  * PD on an anti-ErbB3 mAb prior to afatinib. -, not reported; ADC, adenocarcinoma; PD, progressive disease.1Gay. JTO 2017, 2Cheema. JTO 2017, 3Drilon. Cancer Discov 2018, 4Duruisseaux. WCLC 2019, 5Jones. Ann Oncol 2017, 6Laskin. JSMO 2019, 7Heining. Cancer Discov 2018, 8Jones. Clin Cancer Res 2019, 9Weinberg. ESMO GI 2019, 10Murumagi. AACR 2019. Editorial acknowledgement Greg Plosker of GeoMed, an Ashfield company, part of UDG Healthcare plc. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim. Disclosure Y. Goto: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Chugai; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Taiho Pharmaceutical; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Ono Pharmaceutical; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Shionogi Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Glaxo Smith Kline; Research grant / Funding (self): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (self): Daiichi Sankyo; Research grant / Funding (self): Kyorin. J. Cadranel: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Non-remunerated activity/ies: AZ; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: BI; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis. B.A. Weinberg: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Lilly; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ipsen; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Caris Life Sciences; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Duruisseaux: Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Takeda; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): BMS; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): AbbVie; Honoraria (self): Boerhinger ingelheim. S.V. Liu: Advisory / Consultancy: Apollomics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy: G1 Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech/Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Guardant Health; Advisory / Consultancy: Heron; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta; Advisory / Consultancy: Inivata; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Regeneron; Advisory / Consultancy: Taiho (DSMB); Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda/Ariad; Advisory / Consultancy: Tempus; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Blueprint; Research grant / Funding (institution): Clovis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Corvus; Research grant / Funding (institution): Esanex; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lycera; Research grant / Funding (institution): Molecular Partners; Research grant / Funding (institution): OncoMed; Research grant / Funding (institution): Rain Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Threshold. K. Tolba: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self): Foundation One. R.C. Doebele: Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Licensing / Royalties, Licenses are licensing fees from patents or biological materials : Rain Therapeutics; Honoraria (self): Guardant; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Trovagene; Advisory / Consultancy, Licensing / Royalties, Licenses are licensing fees from patents or biological materials : Ariad; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech/Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Licenses are licensing fees from patents or biological materials : Ignyta; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Licenses are licensing fees from patents or biological materials: Loxo; Research grant / Funding (self): Mirati; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials : Abbott Molecular; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials : GVKbio; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials: Chugai; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials : Genentech; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials: Foundation Medicine; Licensing / Royalties, Licensing fees from patents or biological materials: Black Diamond. R.F. Schlenk: Research grant / Funding (self): Boehringer Ingelheim. J.J. Laskin: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Roche Canada; Honoraria (self): BI Canada; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca Canada; Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer Canada. P.K. Cheema: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Astrazeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BI; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: genomic Health; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. M.R. Jones: Full / Part-time employment: Qiagen. L.A. Muscarella: Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim. A. Cseh: Full / Part-time employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. F. Solca: Full / Part-time employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. D.J. Renouf: Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Tahio; Honoraria (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self): Ipsen; Honoraria (self): Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]