Search

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases remain a common challenge in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. We previously reported reinduction of CNS responses using dose-intensified alectinib in two patients with CNS progression on standard-dose alectinib. Nevertheless, this strategy has not been assessed in larger cohorts. Methods: Patients were eligible for this retrospective study if they had metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC with CNS relapse on alectinib 600 mg twice daily dosing and subsequently received escalated dosing (900 mg twice daily) of alectinib. CNS efficacy was assessed per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results: Among 27 patients, median duration of dose-escalated alectinib was 7.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8–10.9), with median overall time-to-progression (TTP) of 7.1 months (95% CI: 4.4–9.6). Among 25 CNS response-assessable patients, CNS objective response rate was 12.0% (95% CI: 2.5–31.2) and CNS disease control rate was 92.0% (95% CI: 74.0–99.0), with median CNS duration of disease control of 5.3 months (95% CI: 3.4–8.3) and median CNS TTP of 7.1 months (95% CI: 4.4–9.6). Among four patients with measurable CNS disease at baseline, three experienced a best intracranial response of stable disease and one experienced intracranial partial response with CNS TTP ranging from 4.1 to 7.7 months. No patient required drug discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse event or experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: Dose-intensified alectinib was found to have tolerability and activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who experienced CNS relapse on standard-dose alectinib and represents one clinically viable strategy for this population.

Introduction: MET amplification is a potentially actionable resistance mechanism in ALK-rearranged (ALK+) lung cancer. Studies describing treatment outcomes of this molecular subgroup are lacking. Methods: We assembled a cohort of patients with ALK+ lung cancer and acquired MET amplification (identified by tissue or plasma) who received regimens targeting both ALK and MET. Efficacy and safety were assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03, respectively. Results: A total of 12 patients were included in the series. MET amplification was detected after a median of 1.5 (range 1–5) lines of therapy. Four distinct regimens were implemented to address MET amplification: crizotinib (n = 2), lorlatinib plus crizotinib (n = 6), alectinib plus capmatinib (n = 3), and alectinib plus crizotinib (n = 1). Partial responses were observed in five (42%) of 12 patients, including patients who received crizotinib (n = one of two), lorlatinib plus crizotinib (n = three of six), and alectinib plus capmatinib (n = one of three). Primary progression was observed in four patients (33%). Grades 1 to 2 peripheral edema, occurring in seven (58%) patients, was found with both crizotinib and capmatinib. One patient required dose reduction of capmatinib plus alectinib for persistent grade 2 edema. Across the regimens, one patient discontinued therapy for toxicity, specifically neurocognitive toxicity from lorlatinib plus crizotinib. At progression on ALK+ MET therapy, potential resistance mechanisms included MET copy number changes and ALK kinase domain mutations. Conclusions: Combined ALK and MET inhibition is associated with moderate antitumor activity in patients with ALK+ NSCLC with concurrent MET amplification. Prospective studies are indicated to confirm activity and identify individuals most likely to benefit from the treatment.

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33–0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31–0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16–0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24–0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

Introduction: Co-occurring mutations in KRAS-mutant NSCLC are associated with discrete biological properties and modulate therapeutic susceptibilities. As G12D-specific inhibitors are expected to enter the clinic, we sought to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with KRAS G12D-mutant NSCLC. Methods: This was a retrospective single-institution study. Patients with NSCLC and KRAS G12D mutations detected by the Massachusetts General Hospital SNaPshot next-generation sequencing assay were identified. Clinical and pathologic characteristics were collected by chart review. Results: A total of 107 patients with KRAS G12D-mutant NSCLC were identified. Most patients were former smokers (80, 74.8%) and had tumors with adenocarcinoma pathologic subtype (93, 86.9%). Among 56 patients evaluated for programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor proportion score was less than 50% in 43 (76.8%). Concomitant mutations were identified in STK11 (17 of 107, 15.9%), KEAP1 (10 of 58, 17.2%), TP53 (36 of 107, 33.6%), and SMARCA4 (11 of 107, 10.3%). Among 57 patients treated with first-line therapy, patients with STK11 co-mutations had shorter progression-free survival (1.2 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6–2.9 versus 4.1 mo, 95% CI: 2.5–6.0, p = 0.0235) and overall survival (4.3 mo, 95% CI: 1.2–10.6 versus 17.9 mo, 95% CI: 8.6–31.1, p = 0.0018) compared with wild type. Patients with KEAP1 co-mutations had shorter overall survival (4.6 mo, 95% CI: 1.2–10.6 versus 17.9 mo, 95% CI: 7.1–30.1, p = 0.0125) than those without. TP53 co-mutations exerted no influence on survival. Conclusions: Co-occurring mutations were common in patients with KRAS G12D-mutant NSCLC. STK11 and KEAP1 co-mutations were associated with worse clinical outcomes, whereas co-occurring TP53 did not affect survival.

Introduction: The central nervous system (CNS) is a common site of progression among patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer receiving crizotinib. We conducted a phase 2 study to evaluate the intracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer who developed CNS-only progression on crizotinib. Methods: Patients with metastatic ROS1-rearranged lung cancer with CNS-only progression on crizotinib received lorlatinib 100 mg daily. The primary end point was intracranial disease control rate at 12 weeks per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included intracranial and extracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and safety/tolerability. Results: A total of 16 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2019. Nine patients (56%) had received prior CNS radiation, with a median of 10.9 months between radiation and lorlatinib. At 12 weeks, the intracranial disease control rate was 100% and intracranial objective response rate was 87%. While on study, the complee intracranial response rate was 60%. With median follow-up of 22 months, seven patients experienced disease progression, including five patients with CNS relapse. The median intracranial and extracranial progression-free survivals were 38.8 months (95% confidence interval: 16.9–not reported) and 41.1 months (95% confidence interval: 17.6–not reported), respectively. Molecular analysis of plasma or tissue from patients with extracranial progression on lorlatinib revealed ROS1 G2032R (n = 1), ROS1 L2086F (n = 1), and CCDC6-RET fusion plus ROS1 G2032R (n = 1). The safety profile of lorlatinib was consistent with prior studies. There were 11 patients (69%) who required dose reduction, including one patient who discontinued treatment for grade 3 edema. No grade greater than or equal to 4 adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Lorlatinib induced durable intracranial responses in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC and prior isolated CNS progression on crizotinib.

Introduction: ROS1 fusions are oncogenic drivers in 1% to 3% of NSCLCs. The activity of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy (chemotherapy with ICI [chemo-ICI]) in these tumors and their immunophenotype have not been systematically described. Methods: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were evaluated in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and objective response rate (ORR) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) were calculated for patients treated with ICI or chemo-ICI in the metastatic setting. Results: A total of 184 patients were identified. Among 146 assessable cases, PD-L1 expression was less than 1% in 60 (41%), 1% to 49% in 35 (24%), and greater than or equal to 50% in 51 tumors (35%). Of 100 (92%) TMB-assessable tumors, 92 had less than 10 mutations per megabase. TMB was significantly lower for ROS1-rearranged tumors (n = 97) compared with tumors with EGFR (n = 1250) or KRAS alterations (n = 1653) and all other NSCLC tumors (n = 2753) evaluated with Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (median TMB = 2.6 versus 3.5, 7.0, and 6.1 mutations per megabase, p < 0.001). Among patients treated with ICI, median TTD was 2.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0–4.2 mo; n = 28) and ORR 13% (2 of 16 RECIST-assessable; 95% CI: 2%–38%). Among patients treated with chemo-ICI, median TTD was 10 months (95% CI: 4.7–14.1 mo; n = 11) and ORR 83% (5 of 6 RECIST-assessable; 95% CI: 36%–100%). There was no difference in PD-L1 expression (p = 0.91) or TMB (p = 0.83) between responders and nonresponders. Conclusions: Most ROS1-rearranged NSCLCs have low PD-L1 expression and TMB. The activity of ICI in these tumors is modest. In contrast, chemo-ICI can achieve meaningful activity.

Introduction: Lung cancer is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Symptom overlap between COVID-19 and lung cancer may complicate diagnostic evaluation. We aimed to investigate the incidence, symptoms, differential diagnosis, and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer. Methods: To determine an at-risk population for COVID-19, we retrospectively identified patients with lung cancer receiving longitudinal care within a single institution in the 12 months (April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020) immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, including an “active therapy population” treated within the last 60 days of this period. Among patients subsequently referred for COVID-19 testing, we compared symptoms, laboratory values, radiographic findings, and outcomes of positive versus negative patients. Results: Between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2020, a total of 696 patients received longitudinal care, including 406 (58%) in the active therapy population. Among 55 patients referred for COVID-19 testing, 24 (44%) were positive for COVID-19, representing a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (longitudinal population) and 1.5% (active therapy population). Compared with patients who were COVID-19 negative, those who were COVID-19 positive were more likely to have a supplemental oxygen requirement (11% versus 54%, p = 0.005) and to have typical COVID-19 pneumonia imaging findings (5 versus 56%, p = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no marked differences in presenting symptoms. Among patients who were COVID-19 negative, alternative etiologies included treatment-related toxicity (26%), atypical pneumonia (22%), and disease progression (22%). A total of 16 patients positive for COVID-19 (67%) required hospitalization, and seven (29%) died from COVID-related complications. Conclusions: COVID-19 was infrequent in this lung cancer population, but these patients experienced high rates of morbidity and mortality. Oncologists should maintain a low threshold for COVID-19 testing in patients with lung cancer presenting with acute symptoms.