Search

Introduction: Dacomitinib showed superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in the ARCHER1050 study. However, because that study did not include patients with brain metastases, the efficacy of dacomitinib in patients with brain metastases has not been clarified., Patients and Methods: This single-arm phase II study enrolled 30 patients with treatment-naïve advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations from January 2021 to June 2021 and started them on dacomitinib (45 mg/day). All patients had non-irradiated brain metastases with a diameter of ≥5 mm. The primary endpoint was confirmed intracranial objective response rate (iORR)., Results: Patients had exon 19 deletions (46.7%) and L858R mutations in exon 21 (55.3%). The confirmed iORR was 96.7% (29/30), with an intracranial complete response of 63.3%. Median intracranial PFS (iPFS) was not reached, with 12- and 18-month iPFS rates of 78.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64.8% to 95.4%] and 70.4% (95% CI 54.9% to 90.1%), respectively. In the competing risk analysis, the 12-month cumulative incidence of intracranial progression was 16.7%. Regarding the overall efficacy for intracranial and extracranial lesions, the overall ORR was 96.7%, and the median PFS was 17.5 months (95% CI 15.2 months-not reached). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16.7% of patients, and 83.3% required a reduced dacomitinib dose to manage adverse events. However, none permanently discontinued dacomitinib treatment due to treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions: Dacomitinib has outstanding intracranial efficacy in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with brain metastases., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We hypothesized that avelumab plus axitinib could improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Patients and Methods: We enrolled previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC, or untreated, cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced or metastatic UC. Patients received avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) and axitinib 5 mg orally two times daily. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Immunohistochemistry was used to assess programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (SP263 assay) and the presence of CD8+ T cells (clone C8/144B). Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was assessed by whole-exome sequencing., Results: A total of 61 patients were enrolled and treated (NSCLC, n = 41; UC, n = 20); 5 remained on treatment at data cut-off (26 February 2021). The confirmed ORR was 31.7% in the NSCLC cohort and 10.0% in the UC cohort (all partial responses). Antitumor activity was observed irrespective of PD-L1 expression. In exploratory subgroups, ORRs were higher in patients with higher (≥median) CD8+ T cells in the tumor. ORRs were higher in patients with lower TMB (

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, outside the submitted work. NL reports unrelated institutional research funding received from Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and unrelated personal fees (CME lectures, consulting) received from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, EMD Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme. SPo reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. KK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, during the conduct of the study. MJA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Lilly, ONO, MSD, Merck, outside the submitted work. MEA reports personal fees from Biocartis, Invivoscribe, Janssen Global Services, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, RMEI Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, PeerView Institute for medical education, outside the submitted work. OA reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, Merck, BMS, grants and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. DP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, outside the submitted work; and clinical trials research (as principal investigator or co-investigator): AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen. FdM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Boehringer, personal fees from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, outside the submitted work. AMD reports personal fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Jansen, Chiesi, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Bayer, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. RD reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Foundation Medicine, Karyopharm, outside the submitted work. CFF reports grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from MSD, grants and other from Elekta, during the conduct of the study. JF reports personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. EF reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Springer, Takeda, Touch Medical, grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), grants from Fundación Merck Salud, personal fees from CME Outfitters, BeiGene, Medical Trends, Peptomyc, Regeneron, from Syneos Health, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: independent member of the board. GC reports consultation fees from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daichii Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly, Ellipsis, Merck. RH reports consultation fees from AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bolt Biotherapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Inc., Checkpoint Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, DynamiCure Biotechnology, LLC, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Gilead, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, HiberCell, Inc., I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck and Company, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Ocean Biomedical, Inc., Oncocyte Corp., Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Refactor Health, Inc., Ribbon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire PLC, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., WindMIL Therapeutics, Xencor, Inc., research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Company, and participation on board of Immunocore Holdings Limited, Junshi Pharmaceuticals. PAJ reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Voronoi, grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Biocartis, Novartis, Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Takeda Oncology, personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, Transcenta, Silicon Therapeutics, Syndax, Nuvalent, Bayer, Eisai, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, AbbVie, grants from Revolution Medicines, grants from PUMA, grants from Astellas, outside the submitted work. In addition, PAJ is a co-inventor on a DFCI patent on EGFR mutations and receives postmarketing royalties from Lab Corp. TJ reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Ignyta, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Gilead, Puma Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. TM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Ono, MSD, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Takeda, Amgen, Invitae, Merck Biopharma, Thermo Fisher, grants from Bridge Biotherapeutics, grants and personal fees from Ethicon, outside the submitted work. TM reports personal fees and other from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, other from geneDecode, personal fees and other from Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., Incyte Corporation, personal fees from InMed Medical Communication, personal fees and other from Janssen, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., personal fees from MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Serono, MSD, personal fees and other from Mirati Therapeutics Inc., personal fees from MoreHealth, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees and other from OrigiMed, personal fees from PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, grants, personal fees and other from Pfizer, Inc., personal fees from PrIME Oncology, personal fees and other from Puma Biotechnology Inc., personal fees from Research to Practice, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Sanofi-Aventis R&D, grants, personal fees and other from Takeda, personal fees from Touch Medical Media, other from Virtus Medical Group, personal fees and other from Yuhan Corporation, other from AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd, grants from Clovis Oncology, grants, personal fees and other from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, grants from Xcovery, personal fees and other from Curio Science, personal fees from Inivata, Berry Oncology, grants and personal fees from G1 Therapeutics Inc., other from Aurora, personal fees from Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Ltd, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., Ltd, Taiho, personal fees and other from Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Covidien LP, outside the submitted work. NN reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Qiagen, Biocartis, Incyte, Roche, BMS, Merck, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca, personal fees from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Bayer, ArcherDx, grants and personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. LPA reports grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, personal fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Mirati, Janssen, other from Genomica, Altum sequencing, outside the submitted work. SR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Takeda, Eisai, Lilly, outside the submitted work. LS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Novartis, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Takeda, Pfizer, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. JV reports honoraria for invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; participation on advisory board of AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; grant from MSD. IIW reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, personal fees from Asuragen, grants and personal fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, personal fees from Flame, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Oncocyte, MSD, Platform Health, grants from Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Takeda, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, 4D, Iovance, Akoya, outside the submitted work. JW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Lilly, Loxo, MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, outside the submitted work. YLW reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Takeda; grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Hengrui and Roche, outside the submitted work. JCHY reports personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, other from Eli Lilly, personal fees and other from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, MSD, Novartis, personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, personal fees and other from Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, other from Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo, Puma Technology, outside the submitted work. YY reports and contracted studies with ArcherDx, Chugai Pharma and Thermo Fisher Science; honoraria for lectures from MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, Thermo Fisher Science, ArcherDx, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Sysmex; participation on advisory board of MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda and Daiichi-Sankyo. GP reports grants from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, BMS, grants from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, Novartis, outside the submitted work. SPe received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she received honoraria (all fees to institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quavonlimab (MK-1308), a novel anti-CTLA-4 antibody, in combination with pembrolizumab was investigated in a phase I study., Patients and Methods: Dose-escalation (DE) phase: patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors received an initial flat dose of quavonlimab as monotherapy [25 mg (cohort 1), 75 mg (cohort 2), or 200 mg (cohort 3)] followed by four treatments of the same quavonlimab dose plus pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (Q3W). Dose-confirmation phase (DC): patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received first-line quavonlimab [25 mg Q3W (arm A), 25 mg Q6W (arm B), 75 mg Q6W (arm C), or 75 mg Q3W (arm E)] plus pembrolizumab. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability and establishment of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of quavonlimab when used with pembrolizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was a secondary endpoint. Efficacy based on PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and changes in circulating CD4+/CD8+ cells were exploratory endpoints., Results: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in DE [n = 14 (cohort 1); n = 17 (cohort 2); n = 8 (cohort 3)] and 134 in DC [n = 40 (arm A); n = 40 (arm B); n = 40 (arm C); n = 14 (arm E)]. Maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs; graded according to NCI CTCAE v4.03) occurred in 0%, 23.5%, and 75.0% of patients in DE cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 35.0%, 30.0%, 35.0%, and 57.1% of patients in DC arms A, B, C, and E, respectively. Efficacy was observed at all dose levels/schedules in patients with NSCLC. ORRs were 40.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 24.9-56.7; arm A], 37.5% (95% CI, 22.7-54.2; arm B), 27.5% (95% CI, 14.6-43.9; arm C), and 35.7% (95% CI, 12.8-64.9; arm E). PD-L1 expression and total number of circulating CD4+ cells correlated with ORR., Conclusions: Quavonlimab 25 mg Q6W plus pembrolizumab demonstrated similar efficacy and a better safety profile among all quavonlimab doses/schedules evaluated; this regimen was the chosen RP2D., Competing Interests: Disclosure RP reports a consultant role for Karyopharm Therapeutics and BioLineRx. JB reports an advisory board role for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bayer; and a consultant role for MSD, BMS, Novartis, and AbbVie. DWR reports research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. M-JA reports an advisory board role for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, ONO, BMS, Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, and Roche; and a consultant role for Alpha Pharmaceutical Company, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, ONO, BMS, Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, and Roche. KY reports honorarium received from promotional activities from Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Lilly Japan, Novartis, Kirin, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, and Taiho. D-WK reports travel and accommodation support for advisory board meeting attendance from Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. AN reports an advisory board role for MSD, BMS, Roche, and AstraZeneca. MS reports honoraria received from promotional activities from AstraZeneca, MSD, Chugai, Taiho, Pfizer, Nippon Kayaku, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ONO, Novartis, and Eli Lilly; and research grants from Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ONO, Novartis, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Ignyta, and Takeda. DHL reports honoraria for lecturing or consulting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, ChongKunDang, CJ Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche, ST Cube, and Takeda; and travel accommodations from Takeda and Blueprint Medicines. DRS reports leadership for Centennial Medical Center; consulting or advisory role for Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Takeda, Amgen, TRM Oncology, Precision Oncology, Evelo Therapeutics, Illumina, and PharmaMar; research funding (institution) from Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center – Simmons Cancer Center, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, G1 Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Takeda, Foundation Medicine, Nektar, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Acerta Pharma, OncoGenex, Astellas Pharm, GRAIL, Transgene, Ipsen, ARMO BioSciences, Amgen, and Millennium; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, EMD Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Genzyme, Intuitive Surgical, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Sysmex. SS is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. XL is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. JC is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and has stock ownership interests in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. AC is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and has stock ownership interests in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. AC is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. RAA is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. BCC reports a speakers bureau role for Novartis; an advisory board role for Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, ONO, Dizal Pharma, and MSD; a consultant role for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, ONO, Yuhan, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Takeda, and MSD; stock ownership interests in TheraCanVac Inc., Gencurix Inc., and BridgeBio Therapeutics; honoraria from promotional activities for Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, ONO, Dizal Pharma, and MSD; research grants from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono, Dizal Pharma, MSD; and royalties, intellectual property or patents with Champions Oncology. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Patients and Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Clinical Trials Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02151981; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02151981., Competing Interests: Disclosures VAP has declared honorarium from F Hoffman-La Roche; advisory or consultancy fees from Nektar Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca 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 Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, TRM Oncology, Tesaro, Exelixis, Gritstone, Leeds Biolabs, IDEAYA, Bolt Therapeutics, and G2 Innovation; and research funding from Eli Lilly & Co, Novartis, Merck, Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffman-La Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Checkmate, and Incyte. TSM has declared honoraria from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; advisory or consultancy fees from ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cirina, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, GeneDecode, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, IQVIA, Janssen, Loxo-Oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MORE Health, Novartis, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Pfizer, PrIME Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceuticals HK, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Yuhan Corporation; leadership roles for AstraZeneca and Hutchison Chi-Med; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ, and Xcovery; shareholdings in Hutchison Chi-Med, and Sanomics; stock options in Clearbridge BioMedics (now Biolidics), Loxo-Oncology, OrigiMed, and Virtus Medical Group; and officer or director for AstraZeneca, Hutchison Chi-Med (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 (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC; term ended on 30/4/19 [non-remunerated]). J-YH has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Takeda; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. M-JA has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Lilly; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. SSR has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, and Tesaro; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tesaro, Advaxis, and Takeda. SWK has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; and research funding from AstraZeneca. FAS has declared advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; research funding from AstraZeneca; and shareholdings in AstraZeneca. JL has declared honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. HA has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. W-CS has declared travel, accommodation, or expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim. TJ has declared advisory or consultancy fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Ignyta, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. MS has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD. Y-LW has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Roche. HM, MM, GL, and YR are employees of and have shareholdings in AstraZeneca. AD, YH, and WSMET have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Up to 40% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) present with disease progression in the central nervous system (CNS), either as brain metastases (BM) or leptomeningeal metastases (LM). Osimertinib (80 mg), a third-generation, irreversible, oral EGFR TKI, has shown efficacy in active CNS metastases. However, efficacy of osimertinib 160 mg in BM or LM is unclear., Patients and Methods: This prospective, single-arm, two cohort study evaluated the efficacy of osimertinib 160 mg in T790M-positive BM or LM NSCLC patients who progressed on prior EGFR TKI (NCT03257124) treatment. The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) (H 1  = 30%) for the BM cohort and overall survival (OS) (H 1  = 5 months) for the LM cohort., Results: The median follow-up duration was 10.1 months and 9.6 months for the BM and LM cohorts, respectively. In the BM cohort, intracranial ORR and disease control rate were 55.0% and 77.5%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-16.6]; the median OS was 16.9 months [95% CI 7.9-not reached (NR)]. In the LM cohort, intracranial disease control rate was 92.5% and complete response rate was 12.5%. The median OS was 13.3 months (95% CI 9.1-NR); the median PFS was 8.0 months (95% CI 7.2-NR). Subgroup analyses based on previous exposure to T790M-targeting agents, including osimertinib 80 mg or other third-generation EGFR TKIs, showed no difference in PFS in both the BM (n = 18, P = 0.39) and LM (n = 17, P = 0.85) cohorts. Previous radiotherapy favored PFS in the BM cohort (hazard ratio 0.42, P = 0.04). The most common adverse events were decreased appetite, diarrhea, and skin rash; however, most were grade 1-2., Conclusion: Thus, osimertinib 160 mg demonstrated promising ORR and survival benefit with a tolerable safety profile in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC patients with CNS metastasis who progressed on prior EGFR TKIs., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been shown to be beneficial for some patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the underlying mechanisms mediating the limited response to ICIs remain unclear., Patients and Methods: We carried out whole-exome sequencing on 198 advanced NSCLC tumors that had been sampled before anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy. Detailed clinical characteristics were collected on these patients. We designed a new method to estimate human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-corrected tumor mutation burden (TMB), a modification which considers the loss of heterozygosity of HLA from conventional TMB. We carried out external validation of our findings utilizing 89 NSCLC samples and 110 melanoma samples from two independent cohorts of immunotherapy-treated patients., Results: Homology-dependent recombination deficiency was identified in 37 patients (18.7%) and was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.049). Using the HLA-corrected TMB, non-responders to ICIs were identified, despite having a high TMB (top 25%). Ten patients (21.3% of the high TMB group) were reclassified from the high TMB group into the low TMB group. The objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and overall survival (OS) were all lower in these patients compared with those of the high TMB group (ORR: 20% versus 59%, P = 0.0363; PFS: hazard ratio = 2.91, P = 0.007; OS: hazard ratio = 3.43, P = 0.004). Multivariate analyses showed that high HLA-corrected TMB was associated with a significant survival advantage (hazard ratio = 0.44, P = 0.015), whereas high conventional TMB was not associated with a survival advantage (hazard ratio = 0.63, P = 0.118). Applying this approach to the independent cohorts of 89 NSCLC patients and 110 melanoma patients, TMB-based survival prediction was significantly improved., Conclusion: HLA-corrected TMB can reconcile the observed disparity in relationships between TMB and ICI responses, and is of predictive and prognostic value for ICI therapies., Competing Interests: Disclosure JSA reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Menarini, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb-Ono, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Samsung Bioepis, outside the submitted work. S-HL reports grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. KP reports personal fees from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, AMGEN, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, KHK, Merck, MSD, Novartis, ONO, Roche, BluePrint, outside the submitted work. VA receives research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Osimertinib is a potent, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The multi-arm phase Ib TATTON study (NCT02143466) was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of osimertinib in combination with other targeted therapies: selumetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor), savolitinib (MET-TKI), or durvalumab [anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) monoclonal antibody]., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer and disease progression on a prior EGFR-TKI were enrolled and allocated to dose-escalating cohorts combining osimertinib 80 mg orally (p.o.) once a day with selumetinib (25-75 mg p.o. twice a day; continuous or intermittent), savolitinib (600-800 mg p.o. once a day), or durvalumab (3-10 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks)., Results: At data cut-off (28 February 2018), 77 patients were enrolled and received osimertinib plus selumetinib (n = 36), savolitinib (n = 18), or durvalumab (n = 23). Most common adverse events (any grade), occurring in ≥20% of patients across dose groups, were: selumetinib arm-diarrhea (75%), rash (58%), nausea (47%); savolitinib arm-nausea (67%), rash (56%), vomiting (50%); durvalumab arm-rash (48%), vomiting (43%), diarrhea (39%). Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the selumetinib 25 mg (n = 1), 50 mg (n = 1), and 75 mg (n = 4) continuous-dose groups, savolitinib 600 mg (n = 1) and 800 mg dose groups (n = 2), and durvalumab 10 mg/kg (n = 1) dose group. The objective response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval 26% to 59%), 44% (22% to 69%), and 43% (23% to 66%) in the selumetinib, savolitinib, and durvalumab arms, respectively., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of combining osimertinib 80 mg with selumetinib or savolitinib at identified tolerable, active doses. A combination of osimertinib with durvalumab was not feasible due to increased reporting of interstitial lung disease. Osimertinib-based combination therapies represent a compelling approach now being further investigated., Clinical Trials Number: NCT02143466., Competing Interests: Disclosure GO has declared honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Bio-Rad, Sysmex, and Guardant Health, and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Inivata, Takeda, LOXO, Ignyta, DropWorks, and GRAIL. JY has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; and consulting or advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Hansoh, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Yuhan. HY has declared consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Lilly Oncology; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Lilly Oncology, and Novartis. HS has declared honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca. LH has declared consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Roche-Genentech, EMD Serono, Incyte, and Xcovery; and research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Xcovery. KG has declared honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringher Ingelheim, Quintiles, Merck Serono, Life Technologies, MSD, AbbVie, Riken Genesis, Nippon Kayaku, Takeda, and Otsuka Pharmaceutical; consulting or advisory fees from Otskua; and research funding from MSD, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon, Takeda, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Riken Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Ignyta, Life Technologies, Research Triangle Institue d/b/a RTI Health Solutions, Janssen, Xcoo, and Loxo. YO has declared grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical; grants from Dainippon-Sumitomo and Kyorin; and honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Nippon Kayaku. SR has declared grants and honoraria from Merck, Tesaro, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Genentech, Takeda, Merck, Luxo, and Tesaro. M-JA has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche; and consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche, and Alpha Pharmaceutical. KT is an employee and stockholder at AstraZeneca and Tesaro. HM, MF, KV, and DG are employees and stockholders at AstraZeneca. S-WK has declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In KEYNOTE-010, pembrolizumab versus docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death-1 protein (PD)-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A prespecified exploratory analysis compared outcomes in patients based on PD-L1 expression in archival versus newly collected tumor samples using recently updated survival data., Patients and Methods: PD-L1 was assessed centrally by immunohistochemistry (22C3 antibody) in archival or newly collected tumor samples. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W for 24 months or until progression/intolerable toxicity/other reason. Response was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks, survival every 2 months. Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and ≥1%; pembrolizumab doses were pooled in this analysis., Results: At date cut-off of 24 March 2017, median follow-up was 31 months (range 23-41) representing 18 additional months of follow-up from the primary analysis. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel continued to improve OS in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-expressing advanced NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) was 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57, 0.77]. Of 1033 patients analyzed, 455(44%) were enrolled based on archival samples and 578 (56%) on newly collected tumor samples. Approximately 40% of archival samples and 45% of newly collected tumor samples were PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. For TPS ≥50%, the OS HRs were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.91) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.56) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In patients with TPS ≥1%, OS HRs were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.93) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.73) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In TPS ≥50%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.63 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.89)] and newly collected samples [0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.72)]. In patients with TPS ≥1%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.82 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.02)] and newly collected samples [0.83 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.02)]., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab continued to improve OS over docetaxel in intention to treat population and in subsets of patients with newly collected and archival samples., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01905657., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261)., Patients and Methods: Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population., Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously., Clinicaltrials.gov Number: NCT01802632; NCT02094261.

Background: Pembrolizumab improved survival as first- and second-line therapy compared with chemotherapy in patients with highly programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the long-term safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC and the correlation between PD-L1 expression and efficacy., Patients and Methods: In the open-label phase 1b KEYNOTE-001 trial, treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (≥1% staining, assessed using a prototype assay) were randomly assigned to intravenous pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 (Q3W) or 2 (Q2W) weeks. Response was assessed per central RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks in all patients who received ≥1 pembrolizumab dose. Using pre-treatment tumor tissue, a clinical assay quantified the percentage of tumor cells expressing PD-L1 as tumor proportion score (TPS)., Results: Between 1 March 2013 and 18 September 2015, 101 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W (n = 6), 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 49), or 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 46). Of these, 27 (26.7%) had TPS ≥50%, 52 (51.5%) had TPS 1%-49%, and 12 (11.9%) had TPS <1%. The objective response rate (ORR) was 27% (27/101, 95% CI 18-37) and median overall survival was 22.1 months (95% CI 17.1-27.2). In patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, ORR, 12-month PFS, and 12-month OS were higher [14/27 (51.9%; 95% CI 32%-71%), 54%, and 85%, respectively] than the overall population [27/101 (26.7%; 95% CI 18.4%-36.5%), 35%, 71%]. Pembrolizumab was well tolerated, with only 12 (11.9%) patients experiencing grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab provides promising long-term OS benefit with a manageable safety profile for PD-L1-expressing treatment-naive advanced NSCLC, with greatest efficacy observed in patients with TPS ≥50%., Clinical Trial Name and Number: KEYNOTE-001 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01295827)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown., Methods: In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival., Results: The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%)., Conclusions: Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).

Background: Chromosomal rearrangements involving RET, which are found in about 1% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), define a unique molecular subset. We performed this study to examine the efficacy and safety of vandetanib 300 mg daily in this patient population., Patients and Methods: This study was a multi-center, open-label, phase II clinical trial. Patients were enrolled if they had metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with a RET rearrangement, which was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, had progressive disease against platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, and had a performance status of 0-2. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate., Results: A total of 18 patients were enrolled in this study between July 2013 and October 2015. Patients were aged 35-71 years; three had a performance status of 2, and the majority were a heavily pretreated population (≥ two different previous chemotherapy regimens in 72% of the patients). Among the 17 evaluable patients, three had a partial response (objective response rate = 18%) and eight had a stable disease (disease control rate = 65%). Among these patients, the partial response or disease stabilization was durable for more than 6 months in eight patients. Vandetanib also showed a progression-free survival of 4.5 months, and an overall survival of 11.6 months during a median follow-up duration of 14 months. The safety profile was comparable with previous studies of vandetanib. Most vandetanib-related adverse events were mild with prevalent hypertension and rash (in >70% of patients). Grade 3 toxicity included hypertension (n = 3), QT prolongation (2), and elevation of aminotransferases (1), and as a consequence the dose was reduced in four patients. There were no adverse events associated with grade 4 or 5 toxicity., Conclusion: Vandetanib is moderately active in pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC-harboring RET rearrangements., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: A previous randomized phase II study demonstrated that the addition of a c-Met inhibitor tivantinib to an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib might prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously treated, nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). On a subset analysis, the survival benefit was greater in patients with wild-type EGFR (WT-EGFR) than in those with activating EGFR mutations. Herein, this phase III study compared overall survival (OS) between Asian nonsquamous NSCLC patients with WT-EGFR who received erlotinib plus tivantinib (tivantinib group) or erlotinib plus placebo (placebo group)., Methods: A total of 460 NSCLC patients were planned to be randomized to the tivantinib or placebo group. Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were PFS, tumor response, and safety. Tissue was collected for biomarker analysis, including c-Met and HGF expression., Results: Enrollment was stopped when 307 patients were randomized, following the Safety Review Committee's recommendation based on an imbalance in the interstitial lung disease (ILD) incidence between the groups. ILD developed in 14 patients (3 deaths) and 6 patients (0 deaths) in the tivantinib and the placebo groups, respectively. In the enrolled patients, median OS was 12.7 and 11.1 months in the tivantinib and the placebo groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.891, P = 0.427]. Median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the tivantinib and the placebo groups, respectively (HR = 0.719, P = 0.019). The commonly observed grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (24.3%), leukopenia (18.4%), febrile neutropenia (13.8%), and anemia (13.2%)., Conclusions: This study was prematurely terminated due to the increased ILD incidence in the tivantinib group. Although this study lacked statistical power because of the premature termination and did not demonstrate an improvement in OS, our results suggest that tivantinib plus erlotinib might improve PFS than erlotinib alone in nonsquamous NSCLC patients with WT-EGFR., Trial Registration Number: NCT01377376., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: KRAS mutations are detected in 25% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no targeted therapies are approved for this subset population. Trametinib, a selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, demonstrated preclinical and clinical activity in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. We report a phase II trial comparing trametinib with docetaxel in patients with advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients with histologically confirmed KRAS-mutant NSCLC previously treated with one prior platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2 : 1 to trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) i.v. every 3 weeks). Crossover to the other arm after disease progression was allowed. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was prematurely terminated after the interim analysis of 92 PFS events, which showed the comparison of trametinib versus docetaxel for PFS crossed the futility boundary., Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC were randomized; of which, 86 patients received trametinib and 43 received docetaxel. Median PFS was 12 weeks in the trametinib arm and 11 weeks in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14; 95% CI 0.75-1.75; P = 0.5197). Median overall survival, while the data are immature, was 8 months in the trametinib arm and was not reached in the docetaxel arm (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.52-1.83; P = 0.934). There were 10 (12%) partial responses (PRs) in the trametinib arm and 5 (12%) PRs in the docetaxel arm (P = 1.0000). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in ≥20% of trametinib patients were rash, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. The most frequent grade 3 treatment-related AEs in the trametinib arm were hypertension, rash, diarrhea, and asthenia., Conclusion: Trametinib showed similar PFS and a response rate as docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS-mutant-positive NSCLC., Clinicaltrialsgov Registration Number: NCT01362296., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: It is unclear whether treating brain metastasis before starting systemic chemotherapy can improve survival compared with upfront chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with asymptomatic cerebral oligo-metastases., Patients and Methods: We undertook a randomized, controlled trial of 105 patients with one to four brain metastases, admitted to Samsung Medical Center between 2008 and 2013. Patients were randomly assigned to receive stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (49 patients) followed by chemotherapy or upfront chemotherapy (49 patients). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points included central nervous system (CNS) progression-free survival, progression to symptomatic brain metastasis and brain functional outcome., Results: The median age was 58 years (range, 29-85) with ECOG 0-1 performance status, and 40% of patients were never smokers. Most patients had adenocarcinoma, and about half of patients had only one brain metastasis, while the rest had multiple cerebral metastases. The median OS time was 14.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.2-20.0] in the SRS group and 15.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-23.4) for the upfront chemotherapy group (P = 0.418). There was no significant difference in time to CNS disease progression [median, 9.4 months (SRS) versus 6.6 months (upfront chemotherapy), P = 0.248]. Symptomatic progression of brain metastases was observed more frequently in the upfront chemotherapy group (26.5%) than the SRS group (18.4%) but without statistical significance., Conclusions: Although this study included smaller sample size than initially anticipated due to early termination, SRS followed by chemotherapy did not improve OS in oligo-brain metastases NSCLC patients compared with upfront chemotherapy. Further study with large number of patients should be needed to confirm the use of upfront chemotherapy alone in this subgroup of patients., Clinical Trials Number: NCT01301560., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The randomized, phase III AVAPERL trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab maintenance with or without pemetrexed in nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with bevacizumab-pemetrexed, but overall survival (OS) data were immature. In this article, we report an independent, updated analysis of survival outcomes in AVAPERL., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced nsNSCLC received first-line bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg), cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)), and pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks (q3w) for four cycles. Nonprogressing patients were randomized to maintenance bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) or bevacizumab-pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) q3w until progression or consent withdrawal. The primary end point of the trial was PFS; in this independent OS analysis, participating study centers were contacted to collect survival data on patients still alive at the time of the first analysis., Results: A total of 376 patients received induction treatment. Disease control was confirmed in 71.9% of patients; 253 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with bevacizumab (n = 125) or bevacizumab-pemetrexed (n = 128). At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, patients allocated to bevacizumab-pemetrexed had significantly improved PFS versus those on bevacizumab when measured from randomization [7.4 versus 3.7 months, hazard ratio (HR), 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.75); P < 0.0001]. OS events occurred in 58% of all patients. OS was numerically longer with bevacizumab-pemetrexed versus bevacizumab when measured from randomization [17.1 versus 13.2 months, HR 0.87 (0.63-1.21); P = 0.29]. Second-line therapy was administered in 77% and 70% of patients in the bevacizumab and bevacizumab-pemetrexed arms, respectively. No new adverse events were reported during this updated analysis., Conclusion: In an unselected population of nsNSCLC patients achieving disease control on platinum-based induction therapy, maintenance with bevacizumab-pemetrexed was associated with a nonsignificant increase in OS over bevacizumab alone.

Background: Given the more comorbidities with a decline in physiologic reserve, it can be challenging to make appropriate treatment decisions in the elderly., Patients and Methods: Here, we prospectively evaluated and compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients aged ≥ 65 with aged <65 who were treated with a postoperative chemotherapy for completely resected stage Ib, II or IIIa non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Either four cycles of paclitaxel (Taxol)-carboplatin (PC) or vinorelbine-cisplatin (NP) was used. The HRQOL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13., Results: Between October 2008 and October 2011, a total of 139 patients (aged <65, n = 73; ≥ 65, n = 66) were enrolled, and 127 (91.4%) completed the questionnaire. Overall, the quality of life (QOL) in elderly patients did not significantly deteriorate with adjuvant chemotherapy and the time trend of QOL in elderly patients was similar to that of younger patients. Although the elderly suffered from increased treatment-related adverse events involving sore mouth, peripheral neuropathy and alopecia compared with the baseline, the same time trends were also observed in younger group. The mean dose intensities (MDIs) for PC and NP regimen were not significantly different between the two age groups., Conclusions: Postoperative chemotherapy did not substantially reduce HRQOL in elderly NSCLC patients, and HRQOL during and after adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly differ by age.