Search

Few data are available that have compared outcomes with different EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) specifically in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. In this narrative review, we have collated available data from prospective studies that have assessed first-, second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs in Asian populations, including subanalyses in individual countries (China and Japan). These data indicate that outcomes with first- and second-generation TKIs are broadly similar in Asian and non-Asian populations. However, while the third-generation EGFR TKI, osimertinib, confers significant overall survival benefit over erlotinib/gefitinib in non-Asians, this is not apparent in Asians, particularly in countries like Japan with well-resourced healthcare. Head-to-head comparisons of second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs, with OS as a primary end point, should be considered in Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, they do not always reflect real-world patient populations, limiting their generalizability and external validity. Real-world evidence (RWE), generated during routine clinical practice, is increasingly important in determining effectiveness outside of the tightly controlled conditions of RCTs, and is now recognized by regulatory bodies as a valuable complement to RCTs. Consequently, it is increasingly important for physicians to understand how RWE data can be used alongside clinical trial data. Here, we discuss the different types of real-world observational studies, outline the benefits and limitations of RWE, and, using examples from EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, outline how RWE can be used to help inform treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Final overall survival (OS) and time on treatment analysis of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 203) had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and started osimertinib treatment ≥10 months before data entry. Primary outcome was time on treatment; OS analysis was exploratory. Results: Median time on treatment with afatinib and osimertinib was 27.7 months (90% CI: 26.7-29.9). Median OS was 37.6 months (90% CI: 35.5-41.3); median OS was 41.6 and 44.8 months in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients, respectively. Conclusion: In real-world clinical practice, sequential afatinib and osimertinib was associated with encouraging outcomes in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, especially in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03370770 (ClinicalTrials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Overall survival (OS) and updated time to treatment failure (TTF) analysis of patients with EGFR mutation-positive (Del19, L858R) non-small-cell lung cancer who received sequential afatinib/osimertinib in the real-world GioTag study. Patients & methods: Patients had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and received osimertinib treatment (n = 203). Primary outcome was TTF. The OS analysis was exploratory. Results: Median OS was 41.3 months (90% CI: 36.8-46.3) overall and 45.7 months (90% CI: 45.3-51.5) in patients with Del19-positive tumors (n = 149); 2-year survival was 80 and 82%, respectively. Updated median TTF with afatinib and osimertinib was 28.1 months (90% CI: 26.8-30.3). Conclusion: Sequential afatinib/osimertinib was associated with encouraging OS/TTF in patients with EGFR T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, especially in patients with Del19-positive tumors. Trial registration number: NCT03370770. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and T790M (threonine-to-methionine substitution at codon 790)-resistance mutations. The authors present long-term follow-up data from a preplanned, pooled analysis of phase 2 studies, the AZD9291 First Time in Patients Ascending Dose Study (AURA) extension trial (clincialtrials.gov identifier NCT01802632) and the AURA2 trial (NCT02094261).Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed, T790M mutation-positive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer received osimertinib 80 mg once daily until disease progression or study discontinuation. Response was assessed by a blinded, independent, central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.Results: In total, 411 patients received osimertinib (second line, 129 patients; third line or later, 282 patients). At the data cutoff date of November 1, 2016, the median treatment exposure was 16.4 months (range, 0-29.7 months), the objective response rate was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%-70%), the median response duration was 12.3 months (95% CI, 11.1-13.8 months), and the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.3 months). At the data cutoff date of May 1, 2018, 271 patients (66%) had died, and 140 patients (34%) had discontinued before death. The median overall survival was 26.8 months (95% CI, 24.0-29.1 months); and the 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month survival rates were 80%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. Grade ≥3 possibly causally related (investigator assessed) adverse events were reported in 65 patients (16%), and the most common were rash (grouped terms; 42%; grade ≥3, 1%) and diarrhea (39%; <1%).Conclusions: This pooled analysis represents the most mature clinical trial data for osimertinib in patients with pretreated, T790M-positive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer, further establishing osimertinib as a standard of care for this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We report results of the first interim analysis (IA) of BRG vs CRZ in ALK TKI-naive, ALK+ NSCLC from ALTA-1L (NCT02737501). Methods This open-label, multicenter study enrolled pts with advanced ALK+ NSCLC who had ≤1 prior systemic therapy; asymptomatic CNS metastases were allowed. Pts were randomized 1:1 to BRG 180 mg QD with 7-day lead-in at 90 mg or CRZ 250 mg BID. Primary endpoint: blinded independent review committee (BIRC)-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1). Secondary efficacy endpoints included BIRC-assessed ORR, intracranial (i) ORR (iORR), and PFS (iPFS). IAs were planned at 50% and 75% of 198 expected PFS events. Results 275 pts were randomized (BRG/CRZ, n = 137/138); median age: 58/60 y. 26%/27% received prior chemotherapy for advanced disease; 29%/30% had baseline brain metastases. At data cutoff (19Feb2018), median follow-up of BRG/CRZ was 11.0/9.25 mo. With 99 PFS events, BRG met the prespecified threshold for statistical superiority vs CRZ in the primary endpoint, BIRC-assessed PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74, log-rank P =0.0007); BRG median PFS (95% CI) was not reached (NR; NR) vs CRZ 9.8 months (9.0-12.9). Investigator-assessed PFS HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.30-0.68), log-rank P =0.0001. Confirmed ORR for BRG was 71% (62-78) vs CRZ 60% (51-68). In pts with any iCNS disease (BRG/CRZ, n = 43/47), confirmed iORR was 67% (51-81) vs 17% (8-31), P <0.0001. BRG median iPFS was NR (11 mo-NR) vs CRZ 6 mo (4-9); HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.54); log-rank P <0.0001. In pts with measurable iCNS disease (BRG/CRZ, n = 18/21), confirmed iORR was BRG 78% (52-94) vs CRZ 29% (11-52); P =0.0028. Most common grade ≥3 TEAEs for BRG were increased CPK (16.2%) and lipase (13.2%), hypertension (9.6%), and for CRZ were increased ALT (9.5%), AST (5.8%), and lipase (5.1%). Any grade ILD/pneumonitis (BRG/CRZ): 3.7%/2.2%; discontinuations due to AE: 11.8%/8.8%. Conclusions BRG showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in PFS vs CRZ in ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR -mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review., Results: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR -related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR -mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Brigatinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in crizotinib-refractory and ALK inhibitor-naive settings. This analysis assessed brigatinib in Asian vs. non-Asian patients from the first-line ALTA-1L trial., Patients and Methods: This was a subgroup analysis from the phase III ALTA-1L trial of brigatinib vs. crizotinib in ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Secondary endpoints included confirmed objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in the overall population and BIRC-assessed intracranial ORR and PFS in patients with brain metastases., Results: Of the 275 randomized patients, 108 were Asian. Brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS vs. crizotinib in Asian (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.20-0.59]; log-rank P = .0001; median 24.0 vs. 11.1 months) and non-Asian (HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84]; log-rank P = .0041; median 24.7 vs. 9.4 months) patients. Results were consistent with investigator-assessed PFS and BIRC-assessed intracranial PFS. Brigatinib was well tolerated. Toxicity profiles and dose modification rates were similar between Asian and non-Asian patients., Conclusion: Efficacy with brigatinib was consistently better than with crizotinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-+ NSCLC. There were no clinically notable differences in overall safety in Asian vs. non-Asian patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Nazartinib, a novel third-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, previously demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received ≤ 3 prior lines of systemic therapy. Herein, we report phase 2 efficacy and safety of first-line nazartinib., Methods: This single-arm, open-label, global study enrolled treatment-naive adult patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR-activating mutations (eg, L858R and/or ex19del). Patients with neurologically stable and controlled brain metastases were also eligible. Patients received oral nazartinib 150 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Forty-five patients received ≥ 1 dose of nazartinib. The median follow-up time from enrollment to data cutoff (November 1, 2019) was 30 months (range: 25-34). The BIRC-assessed ORR was 69% (95% CI, 53-82). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18 months (95% CI, 15-not estimable [NE]). The median overall survival was NE. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n = 18), the ORR and median PFS (95% CIs) were 67% (41-87) and 17 months (11-21). Seventeen of 18 patients had brain metastases as non-target lesions; the CNS lesions were absent/normalized in 9 of 17 (53%). Only 2 of 27 patients without baseline brain metastases developed new brain metastases postbaseline. Most frequent adverse events (≥ 25%, any grade, all-causality) were diarrhea (47%), maculopapular rash (38%), pyrexia (29%), cough, and stomatitis (27% each)., Conclusions: First-line nazartinib demonstrated promising efficacy, including clinically meaningful antitumor activity in the brain, and manageable safety in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02108964., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Tan reports consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, and Janssen; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer; and research funding (institution) from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and AstraZeneca. Dr. S–W Kim reports advisory role for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novartis; research funding from AstraZeneca and Novartis; and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. PonceAix reports consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche; speakers' bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Sequist reports consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Oncology, and Takeda; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Guardant Health, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo, Merck, Merrimack, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Smit reports consulting or advisory role (institution) for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Yang reports personal fees (advisory board) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Yuhan, and Daiichi Sankyo; grants to conduct investigator initiated study from AstraZeneca; and institutional fees (advisory board) from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Bayer, Yuhan, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Hida reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; and research funding (institution) from Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Ignyta, Janssen, Kissei Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. Dr. Toyozawa reports honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; and research funding (institution) from Abbvie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. Dr. Felip reports consulting or advisory role for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CME outfitters, Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Springer, Takeda, and touchIME; research funding (institution) from EMD Serono and Merck; and other relationship from GRÍFOLS. Dr. Wolf reports consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; research funding (institution) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda. Dr. Grohé reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and MSD Oncology; research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. Dr. Leighl reports honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting or advisory role for Xcovery; research funding (institution) from EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Roche Canada; and travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Riely reports research funding (institution) from GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; patents, royalties, other intellectual property (institution): patent application submitted covering pulsatile use of erlotinib to treat or prevent brain metastases; travel, accommodations, expenses from MSD; and other relationship from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. Dr. Cui and Dr. Belli report employment at Novartis and own Novartis stock. Dr. Zou is a former employee at Novartis and owns Novartis stock. Dr. Ghebremariam reports employment at Novartis, owns Novartis stock, and reports travel, accommodation, and expenses from Novartis. Leslie O'Sullivan-Djentuh and Dr. Giovannini report employment at Novartis. Dr. D-W Kim reports research funding (institution) from Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery, and Yuhan; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) and surgery (Sx) are effective in treating brain metastases. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown activity against asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM). BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be used to treat BRAF V600 mutation positive (BRAF+) MBM., Method: We conducted an international survey among experts from medical oncology (MO), clinical oncology (CO), radiation oncology (RO), and neurosurgery (NS) about treatment recommendations for patients with asymptomatic BRAF+ or BRAF mutation negative (BRAF-) MBM. Eighteen specific clinical scenarios were presented and a total of 267 responses were collected. Answers were grouped and compared using Fisher's exact test., Results: In most MBM scenarios, survey respondents, regardless of specialty, favored RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, for patients with BRAF+ MBM, MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend BRAF/MEK inhibitors alone, without the addition of RT, including the majority of MO (51%) for patients with 1-3 MBM, all <2 cm. Likewise, for BRAF- MBM, MO and CO more commonly recommended single or dual agent ICI only and dual agent ICI therapy alone was the most common recommendation from MO or CO for MBM <2 cm. When at least 1 of 3 MBM (BRAF+ or BRAF-) was >2 cm, upfront Sx was recommended by all groups with the exception that MO and RO recommended RT for BRAF- MBM., Conclusions: In most clinical settings involving asymptomatic MBM, experts recommended RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, recommendations varied significantly according to specialty, with MO and CO more commonly recommending dual systemic therapy alone for up to 9 BRAF- MBM <2 cm., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results., Methods: Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee-assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy., Results: A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53-1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the JAVELIN Lung 200 trial, avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] antibody) did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC. We report greater than 2-year follow-up data., Methods: Patients with stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC with disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was OS in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (greater than or equal to 1% tumor cell expression; IHC 73-10 pharmDx assay)., Results: Of 792 patients, 529 had PD-L1+ tumors (264 versus 265 in the avelumab versus docetaxel arms, respectively). As of March 4, 2019, median duration of follow-up for OS in the PD-L1+ population was 35.4 months in the avelumab arm and 34.7 months in the docetaxel arm; study treatment was ongoing in 25 (9.5%) versus 0 patients, respectively. In the PD-L1+ population, 2-year OS rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) with avelumab versus docetaxel were 29.9% (24.5%-35.5%) versus 20.5% (15.6%-25.8%); in greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ subgroups, 2-year OS rates were 36.4% (29.1%-43.7%) versus 17.7% (11.8%-24.7%) and in the greater than or equal to 80% subgroup were 40.2% (31.3%-49.0%) versus 20.3% (12.9%-28.8%), respectively. Median duration of response (investigator assessed) was 19.1 months (95% CI: 10.8-34.8) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-8.3). Safety profiles for both arms were consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusions: Although the JAVELIN Lung 200 primary analysis (reported previously) revealed that avelumab did not significantly prolong OS versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC, posthoc analyses at 2 years of follow-up revealed that 2-year OS rates were doubled with avelumab in subgroups with higher PD-L1 expression (greater than or equal to 50% and greater than or equal to 80%)., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A splice-site mutation that results in a loss of transcription of exon 14 in the oncogenic driver MET occurs in 3 to 4% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in this patient population., Methods: In this open-label, phase 2 study, we administered tepotinib (at a dose of 500 mg) once daily in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation. The primary end point was the objective response by independent review among patients who had undergone at least 9 months of follow-up. The response was also analyzed according to whether the presence of a MET exon 14 skipping mutation was detected on liquid biopsy or tissue biopsy., Results: As of January 1, 2020, a total of 152 patients had received tepotinib, and 99 patients had been followed for at least 9 months. The response rate by independent review was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 57), with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.2 to could not be estimated) in the combined-biopsy group. The response rate was 48% (95% CI, 36 to 61) among 66 patients in the liquid-biopsy group and 50% (95% CI, 37 to 63) among 60 patients in the tissue-biopsy group; 27 patients had positive results according to both methods. The investigator-assessed response rate was 56% (95% CI, 45 to 66) and was similar regardless of the previous therapy received for advanced or metastatic disease. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were considered by investigators to be related to tepotinib therapy were reported in 28% of the patients, including peripheral edema in 7%. Adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of tepotinib in 11% of the patients. A molecular response, as measured in circulating free DNA, was observed in 67% of the patients with matched liquid-biopsy samples at baseline and during treatment., Conclusions: Among patients with advanced NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib was associated with a partial response in approximately half the patients. Peripheral edema was the main toxic effect of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02864992.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: In this phase I study (BLOOM), osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), was evaluated in patients with leptomeningeal metastases (LMs) from EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease had progressed on previous EGFR-TKI therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with cytologically confirmed LM received osimertinib 160 mg once daily. Objectives were to assess confirmed objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety. Additional efficacy evaluations included changes from baseline in CSF cytology and neurologic examination. Measurable lesions were assessed by investigator according to RECIST version 1.1. LMs were assessed by neuroradiologic blinded central independent review (BICR) according to Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology LM radiologic criteria and by investigator., Results: Forty-one patients were enrolled. LM ORR and DoR by neuroradiologic BICR were 62% (95% CI, 45% to 78%) and 15.2 months (95% CI, 7.5 to 17.5 months), respectively. Overall, ORR by investigator was 41% (95% CI, 26% to 58%), and median DoR was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 16.5 months). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 13.7 months) with 78% maturity; median OS was 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 18.0 months) with 68% maturity. CSF tumor cell clearance was confirmed in 11 (28%; 95% CI, 15% to 44%) of 40 patients. Neurologic function was improved in 12 (57%) of 21 patients with an abnormal assessment at baseline. The adverse event and PK profiles were consistent with previous reports for osimertinib., Conclusion: Osimertinib showed meaningful therapeutic efficacy in the CNS and a manageable safety profile at 160 mg once daily in patients with EGFRm NSCLC and LM.

Lung cancer care is rapidly changing with advances in genomic testing, the development of next-generation targeted kinase inhibitors, and the continued broad study of immunotherapy in new settings and potential combinations. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Journal of Thoracic Oncology publish this annual update to help readers keep pace with these important developments. Experts in thoracic cancer and care provide focused updates across multiple areas, including prevention and early detection, molecular diagnostics, pathology and staging, surgery, adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, and immunotherapy for NSCLC, SCLC, and mesothelioma. Quality and value of care and perspectives on the future of lung cancer research and treatment have also been included in this concise review., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose In addition to prospective trials for non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) that are driven by less common genomic alterations, registries provide complementary information on patient response to targeted therapies. Here, we present the results of an international registry of patients with RET-rearranged NSCLCs, providing the largest data set, to our knowledge, on outcomes of RET-directed therapy thus far. Methods A global, multicenter network of thoracic oncologists identified patients with pathologically confirmed NSCLC that harbored a RET rearrangement. Molecular profiling was performed locally by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or next-generation sequencing. Anonymized data-clinical, pathologic, and molecular features-were collected centrally and analyzed by an independent statistician. Best response to RET tyrosine kinase inhibition administered outside of a clinical trial was determined by RECIST v1.1. Results By April 2016, 165 patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC from 29 centers across Europe, Asia, and the United States were accrued. Median age was 61 years (range, 29 to 89 years). The majority of patients were never smokers (63%) with lung adenocarcinomas (98%) and advanced disease (91%). The most frequent rearrangement was KIF5B-RET (72%). Of those patients, 53 received one or more RET tyrosine kinase inhibitors in sequence: cabozantinib (21 patients), vandetanib (11 patients), sunitinib (10 patients), sorafenib (two patients), alectinib (two patients), lenvatinib (two patients), nintedanib (two patients), ponatinib (two patients), and regorafenib (one patient). The rate of any complete or partial response to cabozantinib, vandetanib, and sunitinib was 37%, 18%, and 22%, respectively. Further responses were observed with lenvantinib and nintedanib. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.0 months), and median overall survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 14.3 months). Conclusion Available multikinase inhibitors had limited activity in patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC in this retrospective study. Further investigation of the biology of RET-rearranged lung cancers and identification of new targeted therapeutics will be required to improve outcomes for these patients.

Background: In IPASS (NCT00322452), progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) was significantly longer with first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in never/light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma in Asia, both in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup. To further characterize the clinical relevance of these data, we investigated objective response rate (ORR) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with gefitinib., Methods: Objective response was assessed (RECIST) 6-weekly (previously reported). Post hoc assessments included median time to response, median duration of response and change in tumor size. The analysis of response population included those patients treated with gefitinib who responded (n = 262 from ITT; n = 94 from EGFR mutation-positive subgroup). The percentage of patients with deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L], Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) and symptoms (Lung Cancer Subscale [LCS]) at 4 months post-randomization was analyzed according to progression status (EFQ population grouped by progressors/non-progressors in both treatment arms). The ORR (ITT) and incidence of skin rash/acne (evaluable-for-safety) were summarized., Results: In patients whose tumors responded to gefitinib, median time to response was 6.1 weeks in the ITT population (n = 262) and 6.0 weeks in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 94); median duration of response was 9.7 and 8.7 months in these groups, respectively. There was significant tumor shrinkage with gefitinib. A greater percentage of patients in the EFQ population whose tumors progressed experienced deterioration in HRQoL and symptoms at 4 months versus patients whose tumors did not progress (FACT-L 33.7% vs 16.3%; TOI 33.7% vs 13.2%; LCS 31.7% vs 15.5%). In the gefitinib arm of the EFS population, incidence of rash was 75.8% and 68.1% in EGFR mutation-positive and -negative subgroups, respectively (with ORR for the gefitinib arm of the ITT 71.2% vs 1.1%, respectively)., Conclusions: Patients whose tumors responded to first-line gefitinib experienced significant tumor shrinkage and a rapid, durable response. Deterioration in HRQoL and lung cancer symptoms at 4 months post-randomization was found to be associated with tumor progression, highlighting the role of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of advanced NSCLC disease. Rash was not supported as a predictive marker of response to gefitinib., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)