Search

Pembrolizumab; Non-small-cell lung cancer Pembrolizumab; Cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas Pembrolizumab; Càncer de pulmó de cèl·lules no petites Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically on the based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present 5-year outcomes from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02578680). Eligible patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations were randomly assigned 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles with pemetrexed and investigator's choice of carboplatin/cisplatin for four cycles, followed by maintenance pemetrexed until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Among 616 randomly assigned patients (n = 410, pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum; n = 206, placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum), median time from random assignment to data cutoff (March 8, 2022) was 64.6 (range, 60.1-72.4) months. Hazard ratio (95% CI) for OS was 0.60 (0.50 to 0.72) and PFS was 0.50 (0.42 to 0.60) for pembrolizumab plus platinum-pemetrexed versus placebo plus platinum-pemetrexed. 5-year OS rates were 19.4% versus 11.3%. Toxicity was manageable. Among 57 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, objective response rate was 86.0% and 3-year OS rate after completing 35 cycles (approximately 5 years after random assignment) was 71.9%. Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum maintained OS and PFS benefits versus placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum, regardless of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression. These data continue to support pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum as a standard of care in previously untreated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Background An important issue for patients with cancer treated with novel therapeutics is how they weigh the effects of treatment on survival and quality of life (QOL). We compared QOL in patients enrolled to SWOG S1400I, a substudy of the LungMAP biomarker-driven master protocol. Methods SWOG S1400I was a randomized phase III trial comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for treatment of immunotherapy-naïve disease in advanced squamous cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Lung Cancer severity score at week 7 and week 13 with a target difference of 1.0 points, assessed using multivariable linear regression. A composite risk model for progression-free and overall survival was derived using best-subset selection. Results Among 158 evaluable patients, median age was 67.6 years and most were male (66.5%). The adjusted MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Lung Cancer severity score was 0.04 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.44 to 0.51 points; P = .89) at week 7 and 0.12 points (95% CI = −0.41 to 0.65; P = .66) at week 13. A composite risk model showed that patients with high levels of appetite loss and shortness of breath had a threefold increased risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.88 to 4.98; P Conclusions We found no evidence of a benefit of ipilimumab added to nivolumab compared with nivolumab alone for QOL in S1400I. A risk model identified patients at high risk of poor survival, demonstrating the prognostic relevance of baseline patient-reported outcomes even in those with previously treated advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are commonly used in the systemic management of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases (BMs). However, optimizing control of NSCLC BM with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and various systemic therapies remains an area of investigation. METHODS Between 2016 and 2019, the authors identified 171 NSCLC BM patients with 646 BMs treated with single-fraction SRS within 3 months of receiving treatment with ICIs (n = 56; 33%), EGFR-TKI (n = 30; 18%), chemotherapy and ICIs (n = 23; 14%), or standard chemotherapy alone (n = 62; 36%). Time-to-event analysis was conducted, and outcomes included distant intracranial control (DIC), local control (LC), and overall survival from SRS. RESULTS The median follow-up from BM diagnosis was 8.9 months (range 0.3–127 months). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier DIC rates were 37%, 53%, 41%, and 21% (p = 0.047) for the ICI, EGFR-TKI, ICI and chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-alone groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis, DIC was improved with EGFR-TKI (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.8, p = 0.005) compared with conventional chemotherapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–0.9, p = 0.03) compared with after; and LC was improved with SRS before (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.9, p = 0.03) or concurrently (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.6, p = 0.003) compared with after. No differences in radionecrosis were noted by timing or type of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS The authors’ analysis showed significant differences in DIC based on receipt of systemic therapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy improved DIC. Prospective evaluation of the potential synergism between systemic therapy and SRS in NSCLC BM management is warranted.

CV301, a poxviral-based vaccine, has been evaluated in a phase 1 clinical trial (NCT02840994) and shown to be safe and immunologically active (phase 1a). Preclinical data support a combination of CV301 with programmed death-1 inhibitors, which has been evaluated in the phase 1b part of this trial and is reported here. Patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without actionable genomic alterations received two priming doses of modified vaccinia Ankara-BN-CV301 (MVA) 4 weeks apart, followed by boosting doses of fowlpox-CV301 (FPV) at increasing time intervals for a maximum of 17 doses in combination with nivolumab for cohort 1 (C1) and 15 doses in combination with pembrolizumab for cohort 2 (C2). The primary objective was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Between October 2017 and September 14, 2018, patients were enrolled (C1: 4; median age: 64 years). Mean treatment duration was 332 days in C1 and 289 days in C2. CTCAE ≥grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were observed in four (100%) patients in C1 and three (37.5%) patients in C2. There was one death on trial. Immune-related AEs (irAEs) fulfilling criteria for a dose-limiting toxicity included 1 case of pneumonitis. Among 11 evaluable patients, 1 (9%) had a complete response, 1 (9%) had a partial response and 9 (82%) had stable disease. We conclude that CV301 administered with PD-1 inhibitors is safe and clinically active in patients with advanced NSCLC. The frequency or severity of AEs is not increased, including irAEs for each component of the combination.

PURPOSE Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a major unmet need. Combining ICI with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor inhibition has yielded promising results in multiple tumor types. METHODS In this randomized phase II Lung-MAP nonmatch substudy (S1800A), patients ineligible for a biomarker-matched substudy with NSCLC previously treated with ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy and progressive disease at least 84 days after initiation of ICI were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab (RP) or investigator's choice standard of care (SOC: docetaxel/ramucirumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and pemetrexed). With a goal of 130 eligible patients, the primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) using a one-sided 10% level using the better of a standard log-rank (SLR) and weighted log-rank (WLR; G[rho = 0, gamma = 1]) test. Secondary end points included objective response, duration of response, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and toxicity. RESULTS Of 166 patients enrolled, 136 were eligible (69 RP; 67 SOC). OS was significantly improved with RP (hazard ratio [80% CI]: 0.69 [0.51 to 0.92]; SLR one-sided P = .05; WLR one-sided P = .15). The median (80% CI) OS was 14.5 (13.9 to 16.1) months for RP and 11.6 (9.9 to 13.0) months for SOC. OS benefit for RP was seen in most subgroups. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (hazard ratio [80% CI]: 0.86 [0.66 to 1.14]; one-sided SLR, P = .25 and .14 for WLR) and response rates (22% RP v 28% SOC, one-sided P = .19) were similar between arms. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42% of patients in the RP group and 60% on SOC. CONCLUSION This randomized phase II trial demonstrated significantly improved OS with RP compared with SOC in patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with ICI and chemotherapy. The safety was consistent with known toxicities of both drugs. These data warrant further evaluation.

Purpose: Efficacy of MEK inhibitors in KRAS+ NSCLC may differ based on specific KRAS mutations and co-mutations. Our hypothesis was that docetaxel and trametinib would improve activity in KRAS+ NSCLC and specifically in KRAS G12C NSCLC. Patients and Methods: S1507 is a single arm phase II assessing the response rate (RR) with docetaxel plus trametinib in recurrent KRAS+ NSCLC and secondarily in the G12C subset. The accrual goal was 45 eligible patients with at least 25 with G12C mutation. The design was 2-stage design to rule out a 17% RR, within the overall population at the 1-sided 3% level and within the G12C subset at the 5% level. Results: Between July 18, 2016 and March 15, 2018, 60 patients were enrolled with 53 eligible and 18 eligible in the G12C cohort. The RR was 34% (95%CI- 22-48) overall and 28% (95%CI- 10-53) in G12C. Median PFS and OS were 4.1 and 3.3 months and 10.9 and 8.8 months, overall and in the subset, respectively. Common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, rash, anemia, mucositis, neutropenia. Among 26 patients with known status for TP53 (10+ve) and STK11 (5+ve), OS (HR:2.85, 95%CI 1.16-7.01) and RR (0% vs. 56%, p = 0.004) were worse in patients with TP53 mutated versus wild type cancers. Conclusions: RRs were significantly improved in the overall population. Contrary to pre-clinical studies, the combination showed no improvement in efficacy in G12C patients. Co-mutations may influence therapeutic efficacy of KRAS directed therapies and are worthy of further evaluation.

Molecular modifiers of KRAS G12C inhibitor (KRAS G12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinico-genomic analysis of 424 NSCLC patients, we identified and validated co-alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4 and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRAS G12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, co-mutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ~50% of those with early disease progression (PFS≤3 months) with KRAS G12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent co-alterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRAS G12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRAS G12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies.

(A) TMA containing 68 patient-derived xenograft (PDX) tumor models stained with PAXIP1 and WEE1 (B-C) Two lung adenocarcinoma PDXs with PAXIP1 and WEE1 staining were used to perform ex vivo 3-D clonogenic assays with various concentrations of AZD1775 and cisplatin and tumor/control - T/C was measured by image analysis.

Peptides used for LC-MRM based protein quantification for each kinase

Supplementary Materials and Methods

Legends for Supplementary Figures and Tables

Purpose: MEDI0680 is a humanized anti–programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody, and durvalumab is an anti-PD-L1 antibody. Combining treatment using these antibodies may improve efficacy versus blockade of PD-1 alone. This phase II study evaluated antitumor activity and safety of MEDI0680 plus durvalumab versus nivolumab monotherapy in immunotherapy-naïve patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received at least one prior line of antiangiogenic therapy. Patients and Methods: Patients received either MEDI0680 (20 mg/kg) with durvalumab (750 mg) or nivolumab (240 mg), all intravenous, every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), safety, overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Exploratory endpoints included changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline tumor mutational burden, and tumor-infiltrated immune cell profiles. Results: Sixty-three patients were randomized (combination, n = 42; nivolumab, n = 21). ORR was 16.7% [7/42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.0–31.4] with combination treatment and 23.8% (5/21; 95% CI, 8.2–47.2) with nivolumab. Median PFS was 3.6 months in both arms; median OS was not reached in either arm. Because of adverse events, 23.8% of patients discontinued MEDI0680 and durvalumab and 14.3% of patients discontinued nivolumab. In the combination arm, reduction in ctDNA fraction was associated with longer PFS. ctDNA mutational analysis did not demonstrate an association with response in either arm. Tumor-infiltrated immune profiles showed an association between immune cell activation and response in the combination arm. Conclusions: MEDI0680 combined with durvalumab was safe and tolerable; however, it did not improve efficacy versus nivolumab monotherapy.

PURPOSE The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non–small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned. METHODS Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS. CONCLUSION These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are standard of care in the first-line (1L) setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. EGFR-activating mutations are a predictive factor for response to EGFR-TKIs. Meta-analyses have shown that patients with exon 21_L858R mutations exhibit reduced sensitivity to EGFR-TKIs, resulting in inferior patient outcomes compared to those with exon 19 deletion mutations, with worse overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response, and disease control rates. Clinical activity observed with 1L therapy with first-generation (1G), second-generation (2G), and third-generation (3G) EGFR-TKIs is not permanent, and resistance inevitably develops in all cases, supporting the importance of overall treatment planning. The introduction of the 3G EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, provides an opportunity to overcome T790M-mediated resistance to 1G and 2G EGFR-TKIs. Additionally, with the use of osimertinib, fewer T790M mutations are being detected as T790M is not a reported resistance mechanism to 3G EGFR-TKIs. However, there are currently no approved targeted therapies after 3G EGFR-TKIs. In order to further improve patient outcomes, there is a need to explore additional options for the overall treatment strategy for patients, including 1L and beyond. Combination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs may be a potential therapeutic approach in the 1L setting. This review discusses current treatment options for mNSCLC with activating EGFR mutations based on tumor, patient, and treatment characteristics and how an overall treatment plan may be developed.

Approach to assess levels of monocytic and PMN MDSC in patient PBMCs.

Supplementary Table from A Randomized Phase II Study of MEDI0680 in Combination with Durvalumab versus Nivolumab Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Table S2 shows the categorization of local testing methods based on assay limit of detection compared to the cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2

Genetic profiling of 42 cases

Patient characteristics per PD-L1 stratification subgroups

Supplementary Figure from A Randomized Phase II Study of MEDI0680 in Combination with Durvalumab versus Nivolumab Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: We evaluated a Trop-2–targeting antibody conjugated with SN-38 in metastatic small cell lung cancer (mSCLC) patients.Experimental Design: Sacituzumab govitecan was studied in patients with pretreated (median, 2; range, 1–7) mSCLC who received either 8 or 10 mg/kg i.v. on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR); duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints.Results: Sixty percent of patients showed tumor shrinkage from baseline CTs. On an intention-to-treat basis (N = 50), the ORR was 14% (17% for the 10-mg/kg group); the median response duration, 5.7 months; the clinical benefit rate (CBR ≥4 months), 34%; median PFS, 3.7 months; and median OS, 7.5 months. There was a suggested improvement in PR, CBR, and PFS with sacituzumab govitecan in second-line patients who were sensitive to first-line therapy, but no difference between first-line chemosensitive versus chemoresistant patients in the overall population. There was a statistically significant higher OS in those patients who received prior topotecan versus no topotecan therapy in a small subgroup. Grade ≥3 adverse events included neutropenia (34%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (9%), and anemia (6%). Trop-2 tumor staining was not required for patient selection. No antibodies to the drug conjugate or its components were detected on serial blood collections.Conclusions: Sacituzumab govitecan appears to have a safe and effective therapeutic profile in heavily pretreated mSCLC patients, including those who are chemosensitive or chemoresistant to first-line chemotherapy. Additional studies as a monotherapy or combination therapy are warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(19); 5711–9. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose:Osimertinib was initially approved for T790M-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and, more recently, for first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. However, resistance mechanisms to osimertinib have been incompletely described.Experimental Design:Using cohorts from The University of Texas MD Anderson Lung Cancer Moonshot GEMINI and Moffitt Cancer Center lung cancer databases, we collected clinical data for patients treated with osimertinib. Molecular profiling analysis was performed at the time of progression in a subset of the patients.Results:In the 118 patients treated with osimertinib, 42 had molecular profiling at progression. T790M was preserved in 21 (50%) patients and lost in 21 (50%). EGFR C797 and L792 (26%) mutations were the most common resistance mechanism and were observed exclusively in T790M-preserved cases. MET amplification was the second most common alteration (14%). Recurrent alterations were observed in 22 genes/pathways, including PIK3CA, FGFR, and RET. Preclinical studies confirmed MET, PIK3CA, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition as potential resistance drivers. Alterations of cell-cycle genes were associated with shorter median progression-free survival (PFS, 4.4 vs. 8.8 months, P = 0.01). In 76 patients with progression, osimertinib was continued in 47 cases with a median second PFS (PFS2) of 12.6 months; 21 patients received local consolidation radiation with a median PFS of 15.5 months. Continuation of osimertinib beyond progression was associated with a longer overall survival compared with discontinuation (11.2 vs. 6.1 months, P = 0.02).Conclusions:Osimertinib resistance is associated with diverse, predominantly EGFR-independent genomic alterations. Continuation of osimertinib after progression, alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, may provide prolonged clinical benefit in selected patients.See related commentary by Devarakonda and Govindan, p. 6112.

Purpose:MEDI0680 is a humanized anti–programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody, and durvalumab is an anti-PD-L1 antibody. Combining treatment using these antibodies may improve efficacy versus blockade of PD-1 alone. This phase II study evaluated antitumor activity and safety of MEDI0680 plus durvalumab versus nivolumab monotherapy in immunotherapy-naïve patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received at least one prior line of antiangiogenic therapy.Patients and Methods:Patients received either MEDI0680 (20 mg/kg) with durvalumab (750 mg) or nivolumab (240 mg), all intravenous, every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), safety, overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Exploratory endpoints included changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline tumor mutational burden, and tumor-infiltrated immune cell profiles.Results:Sixty-three patients were randomized (combination, n = 42; nivolumab, n = 21). ORR was 16.7% [7/42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.0–31.4] with combination treatment and 23.8% (5/21; 95% CI, 8.2–47.2) with nivolumab. Median PFS was 3.6 months in both arms; median OS was not reached in either arm. Because of adverse events, 23.8% of patients discontinued MEDI0680 and durvalumab and 14.3% of patients discontinued nivolumab. In the combination arm, reduction in ctDNA fraction was associated with longer PFS. ctDNA mutational analysis did not demonstrate an association with response in either arm. Tumor-infiltrated immune profiles showed an association between immune cell activation and response in the combination arm.Conclusions:MEDI0680 combined with durvalumab was safe and tolerable; however, it did not improve efficacy versus nivolumab monotherapy.

Suplement_Tracked changes

Supplementary Data from Phase I Study of Taminadenant (PBF509/NIR178), an Adenosine 2A Receptor Antagonist, with or without Spartalizumab (PDR001), in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Immunohistology expression of Trop-2 vs response

Supplementary Figure from Phase I Study of Taminadenant (PBF509/NIR178), an Adenosine 2A Receptor Antagonist, with or without Spartalizumab (PDR001), in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose:To assess the utility of the cobas EGFR Mutation Test, with tissue and plasma, for first-line osimertinib therapy for patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm; Ex19del and/or L858R) advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the FLAURA study (NCT02296125).Experimental Design:Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.Results:Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74–84] and 68% (95% CI, 61–75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).Conclusions:Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.

Supplementary material methods figures and tables

Purpose:The adenosine 2A receptor (A2AR) mediates the immunosuppressive effects of adenosine in the tumor microenvironment and is highly expressed in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Taminadenant (PBF509/NIR178) is an A2AR antagonist able to reactivate the antitumor immune response.Patients and Methods:In this phase I/Ib, dose-escalation/expansion study, patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and ≥1 prior therapy received taminadenant (80–640 mg, orally, twice a day) with or without spartalizumab (anti–programmed cell death-1, 400 mg, i.v., every 4 weeks). Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and feasibility of the combination.Results:During dose escalation, 25 patients each received taminadenant alone or with spartalizumab; 19 (76.0%) and 9 (36.0%) had received prior immunotherapy, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities (all Grade 3) with taminadenant alone were alanine/aspartate aminotransferase increase and nausea [n = 1 (4.0%) each; 640 mg], and in the combination group were pneumonitis [n = 2 (8.0%); 160 and 240 mg] and fatigue and alanine/aspartate aminotransferase increase [n = 1 (4.0%) each; 320 mg]; pneumonitis cases responded to steroids rapidly and successfully. Complete and partial responses were observed in one patient each in the single-agent and combination groups; both were immunotherapy naïve. In the single-agent and combination groups, 7 and 14 patients experienced stable disease; 7 and 6 patients were immunotherapy pretreated, respectively.Conclusions:Taminadenant, with and without spartalizumab, was well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC. The maximum tolerated dose of taminadenant alone was 480 mg twice a day, and 240 mg twice a day plus spartalizumab. Efficacy was neither a primary or secondary endpoint; however, some clinical benefit was noted regardless of prior immunotherapy or programmed cell death ligand-1 status.

Evaluation of IHC staining vs best overall response in SCLC treated with 8 or 10 mg/kg starting dose of sacituzumab govitecan

Platform-match 18 cases

Purpose:Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) enhance tumor immunogenicity through several mechanisms and may improve response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In a phase I/Ib trial, we tested the oral HDACi vorinostat combined with the programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.Patients and Methods:Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral vorinostat (200 or 400 mg/day). Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary endpoints included response rate, progression-free survival, disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival. Tumor gene expression changes, T-cell density, and myeloid cell levels were studied in serial tissue specimens.Results:Thirty-three patients were treated (13 in phase I, 20 in phase Ib). In phase I, both ICI-naïve and ICI-pretreated patients were enrolled to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). No DLTs were observed, and the recommended phase I dose was pembrolizumab 200 mg and vorinostat 400 mg. Any-grade adverse events were mainly fatigue (33%) and nausea/vomiting (27%). Of six ICI-naïve and 24 ICI-pretreated patients evaluable for response, four (13%) had partial response [two confirmed, one unconfirmed with subsequent prolonged stable disease (SD), one unconfirmed with subsequent progressive disease (PD)], 16 (53%) had SD, and 10 (33%) had PD for a DCR of 67%. In the ICI-pretreated cohort, three patients (one confirmed, two unconfirmed) had partial response and 10 had SD. Pretreatment CD8+ T-cell presence in tumor stromal regions was associated with treatment benefit.Conclusions:Pembrolizumab plus vorinostat was well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity despite progression on prior ICI treatment.

Background: Pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy has become an important frontline treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, it remains unclear how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the treatment outcome. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted based on a real-world database, comparing pandemic with pre-pandemic patient cohorts. The pandemic cohort consisted of patients who initiated treatment from March to July 2020, with follow-up through March 2021. The pre-pandemic cohort consisted of those initiating treatment between March and July 2019.The outcome was overall real-world survival. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models were constructed. Results: Analyses included data from 2090 patients: 998 in the pandemic cohort and 1092 in the pre-pandemic cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable, with 33% of patients having PD-L1 expression level ≥50% and 29% of patients receiving pembrolizumab monotherapy. Among those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy (N = 613), there was a differential impact of the pandemic on survival by PD-L1 expression levels (p-interaction = 0.02). For those with PD-L1 level < 50%, survival was better in the pandemic cohort than the pre-pandemic cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 (95% CI: 0.43–0.97, p = 0.03). However, for those with PD-L1 level ≥ 50%, survival was not better in the pandemic cohort: HR 1.17 (95% CI: 0.85–1.61, p = 0.34). We found no statistically significant impact of the pandemic on survival among patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in survival among patients with lower PD-L1 expression who were treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. This finding suggests an increased efficacy of immunotherapy due to viral exposure in this population.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations typically occur in exons 18–21 and are established driver mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)1–3. Targeted therapies are approved for patients with ‘classical’ mutations and a small number of other mutations4–6. However, effective therapies have not been identified for additional EGFR mutations. Furthermore, the frequency and effects of atypical EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity are unknown1,3,7–10. Here we characterize the mutational landscape in 16,715 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and establish the structure–function relationship of EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity. We found that EGFR mutations can be separated into four distinct subgroups on the basis of sensitivity and structural changes that retrospectively predict patient outcomes following treatment with EGFR inhibitors better than traditional exon-based groups. Together, these data delineate a structure-based approach for defining functional groups of EGFR mutations that can effectively guide treatment and clinical trial choices for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suggest that a structure–function-based approach may improve the prediction of drug sensitivity to targeted therapies in oncogenes with diverse mutations.

Plasma cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) genotyping is an alternative to tissue genotyping, particularly when tissue specimens are insufficient or unavailable, and provides critical information that can be used to guide treatment decisions in managing patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this article, we review the evolution of plasma cfDNA genotyping from an emerging concept, through development of analytical methods, to its clinical applications as a standard‐of‐care tool in NSCLC. The number of driver or resistance mutations recommended for testing in NSCLC continues to increase. Because of the expanding list of therapeutically relevant variants, comprehensive testing to investigate larger regions of multiple genes in a single run is often preferable and saves on time and cost, compared with performing serial single‐gene assays. Recent advances in nucleic acid next‐generation sequencing have led to a rapid expansion in cfDNA genotyping technologies. Analytic assays that have received regulatory approval are now routinely used as diagnostic companions in the setting of metastatic NSCLC. As the demand for plasma‐based technologies increases, more regulatory approvals of cfDNA genotyping assays are expected in the future. Plasma cfDNA genotyping is currently aiding oncologists in the delivery of personalized care by facilitating matching of patients with targeted therapy and monitoring emergence of resistance to therapy in NSCLC. Further advances currently underway to increase assay sensitivity and specificity will potentially expand the use of plasma cfDNA genotyping in early cancer detection, monitoring response to therapy, detection of minimal residual disease, and measurement of tumor mutational burden in NSCLC. Implications for Practice Plasma cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) genotyping offers an alternative to tissue genotyping, particularly when tissue specimens are insufficient or unavailable. Advances in cfDNA genotyping technologies have led to analytic assays that are now routinely used to aid oncologists in the delivery of personalized care by facilitating matching of patients with targeted therapy and monitoring emergence of resistance to therapy. Further advances underway to increase assay sensitivity and specificity will potentially expand the use of plasma cfDNA genotyping in early cancer detection, monitoring response to therapy, detection of minimal residual disease, and evaluation of tumor mutational burden in non‐small cell lung cancer., This article reviews the evolution of plasma cell‐free DNA genotyping from an emerging concept, through development of analytical methods, to its clinical applications as a standard‐of‐care tool in non‐small cell lung cancer.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) causes significant mortality each year. After successful resection of disease stage IB (>4 cm) to IIIA (per AJCC 7), adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy improves median overall survival and is the standard of care, but many patients still experience recurrence of disease. An adjuvant regimen with greater efficacy could substantially improve outcomes. Pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor, has become an important option in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. ALCHEMIST is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that includes biomarker analysis for resected NSCLC and supports therapeutic trials including A081801 (ACCIO), a three-arm study that will evaluate both concurrent chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab and sequential chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab to standard of care adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT04267848 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Tweetable abstract Non-small-cell lung cancer adjuvant platinum-based therapy is standard of care (SOC). Including pembrolizumab may improve efficacy. A081801 (ACCIO) is a three-arm study: SOC versus sequential chemotherapy–pembrolizumab versus concurrent chemotherapy + pembrolizumab.

Rationale: Adverse events (AEs) have been shown to have clinical associations, in addition to patient safety assessments of drugs of interest. However, due to their complex content and associated data structure, AE evaluation has been restricted to descriptive statistics and small AE subset for efficacy analysis, limiting the opportunity for global discovery. This study takes a unique approach to utilize AE-associated parameters to derive a set of innovative AE metrics. Comprehensive analysis of the AE-derived biomarkers enhances the chance of discovering new predictive AE biomarkers of clinical outcomes. Methods. We utilized a set of AE-associated parameters (grade, treatment relatedness, occurrence, frequency, and duration) to derive 24 AE biomarkers. We further innovatively defined early AE biomarkers by landmark analysis at an early time point to assess the predictive value. Statistical methods included the Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), two-sample t-test for mean difference of AE frequency and duration between disease control (DC: complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD)) versus progressive disease (PD), and Pearson correlation analysis for relationship of AE frequency and duration versus treatment duration. Two study cohorts (Cohort A: vorinostat + pembrolizumab, and B: Taminadenant) from two immunotherapy trials in late-stage non-small cell lung cancer were used to test the potential predictiveness of AE-derived biomarkers. Data from over 800 AEs were collected per standard operating procedure in a clinical trial using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 (CTCAE). Clinical outcomes for statistical analysis included PFS, OS, and DC. Results: An early AE was defined as event occurrence at or prior to day 30 from initial treatment date. The early AEs were then used to calculate the 24 early AE biomarkers to assess overall AE, each toxicity category, and each individual AE. These early AE-derived biomarkers were evaluated for global discovery of clinical association. Both cohorts showed that early AE biomarkers were associated with clinical outcomes. Patients previously experienced with low-grade AEs (including treatment related AEs (TrAE)) had improved PFS, OS, and were associated with DC. The significant early AEs included low-grade TrAE in overall AE, endocrine disorders, hypothyroidism (pembrolizumab’s immune-related adverse event (irAE)), and platelet count decreased (vorinostat related TrAE) for Cohort A and low-grade AE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders, and nausea for Cohort B. In contrast, patients with early development of high-grade AEs tended to have poorer PFS, OS, and correlated with PD. The associated early AEs included high-grade TrAE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders with two members, diarrhea and vomiting, for Cohort A and high-grade AE in overall AE, three toxicity categories, and five related individual AEs for Cohort B. One low-grade TrAE, alanine aminotransferase increased (vorinostat + pembrolizumab related), was an irAE and correlated with worse OS in Cohort A. Conclusions: The study demonstrated the potential clinical utility of early AE-derived biomarkers in predicting positive and negative clinical outcomes. It could be TrAEs or combination of TrAEs and nonTrAEs from overall AEs, toxicity category AEs, to individual AEs with low-grade event leaning to encouraging effect and high-grade event to undesirable impact. Moreover, the methodology of the AE-derived biomarkers could change current AE analysis practice from a descriptive summary into modern informative statistics. It modernizes AE data analysis by helping clinicians discover novel AE biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes and facilitate the generation of vast clinically meaningful research hypotheses in a new AE content to fulfill the demands of precision medicine.