Search

Introduction: Responses to first-line programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition vary among patients with metastatic NSCLC and a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) greater than or equal to 50%. We previously reported improved clinical outcomes to first-line programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition in patients with metastatic NSCLC with a PD-L1 TPS of greater than or equal to 90% versus 50% to 89% in a pilot study. Here, we report the three-year survival with first-line pembrolizumab and cemiplimab in two large independent cohorts of patients with PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% versus 50% to 89% and characterize genomic and immunophenotypic differences between these PD-L1 expression groups, which were largely unknown. Methods: We analyzed three-year outcomes of the following two independent cohorts: (1) a multicenter cohort of patients from four academic centers in the United States treated with pembrolizumab and (2) EMPOWER-Lung 1, randomized, phase III trial comparing first-line cemiplimab with chemotherapy. Tumor genomic profiling and multiplexed immunofluorescence were performed to evaluate genomic and immunophenotypic correlates of very high PD-L1 expression. Results: At three years of follow-up, progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; p < 0.001) and overall survival (HR, 0.70; p < 0.01) to first-line commercial pembrolizumab were significantly improved in patients with a PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% versus 50% to 89%. In the EMPOWER-Lung 1, patients assigned to the cemiplimab arm with a PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% also had significant improvements in progression-free survival (HR, 0.53; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (HR, 0.63; p = 0.007) compared with those with a PD-L1 of 50% to 89%. Tumor genomic profiling of 553 NSCLC samples revealed that mutations in STK11 and SMARCA4 were significantly more frequent in tumors with a PD-L1 TPS of 50% to 89% compared with those with a PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% (Q < 0.15), whereas BRCA2 was enriched in NSCLC samples with a PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% (Q < 0.15). Multiplexed immunofluorescence on 93 NSCLC samples identified higher intratumoral CD8+PD1+ T cells (p = 0.02) in tumors with PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% versus 50% to 89%. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab and cemiplimab were found to have long-term survival benefit and favorable genomic and immunophenotypic profile in patients with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS greater than or equal to 90% compared with TPS 50% to 89%.

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: 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: 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.

Introduction: The development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has been associated with improved efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with urothelial cancer, melanoma, and NSCLC. Whether this association exists in patients with SCLC is currently unknown. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the relationship between irAEs and immunotherapy efficacy in SCLC. To account for the lead-time bias resulting from the time-dependent nature of irAEs, the development of irAEs was considered as a time-varying covariate in univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Of the 183 patients treated with immunotherapy, 73 (39.9%) experienced at least one irAE. A total of 42 patients (22.9%) had grade 1 to 2 irAEs, whereas 31 patients (16.9%) had grade 3 to 4 irAEs. The median time of onset to the first irAE was 24 days (interquartile range: 14–55). The baseline clinicopathologic features were well-balanced between patients with and without irAEs. At a median follow-up of 24 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.0–31.6), the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the irAE group than the non-irAE group (3.8 versus 1.3 mo, p < 0.0001). The median overall survival was also significantly longer among patients with irAEs than patients without irAEs (13.8 versus 2.9 mo, p < 0.0001). When analyzed as a time-varying covariate, the development of irAEs was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.29–0.66], p < 0.001) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.32–0.71], p < 0.001) in multivariate models. Conclusions: The development of irAEs is associated with improved clinical outcomes for immunotherapy in patients with advanced SCLC.

Introduction: RET rearrangements define a distinct molecular subset of NSCLC. The multikinase inhibitor ponatinib reveals potent activity in preclinical models of RET-rearranged NSCLC. Methods: In this single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial, we evaluated the clinical activity of ponatinib in patients with advanced, previously treated, RET-rearranged NSCLC (NCT01813734). RET rearrangements were identified through fluorescence in situ hybridization or next-generation sequencing. Ponatinib was administered at a dose of 30 mg once daily. Patients without a documented objective response were eligible to dose-escalate ponatinib to 45 mg daily. The primary end point was objective response rate. Results: Between August 2014 and December 2017, nine patients were enrolled. The median age was 58 years (range 49–73 y). Eight patients (89%) had a history of brain metastases. The median number of previous lines of therapy was three (range 1–5). Of the nine evaluated patients, five (55%) experienced tumor shrinkage from baseline, but no confirmed responses were observed (objective response rate 0%). The disease control rate was 55%. With a median follow-up of 9.33 months, the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.80 months (95% CI: 1.83–5.30) and 17.47 months (95% CI: 6.57–19.20), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash (n = 5; 56%), constipation (n = 4; 44%), and diarrhea (n = 4; 44%). No treatment-related thromboembolic or cardiac events were observed. The study was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual and lack of clinical activity. Conclusions: Ponatinib has limited clinical activity in patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC. Continued development of more potent and selective RET inhibitors is needed.