RESUMEN
Introduction: NSCLC transformation to SCLC has been best characterized with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, with emerging case reports seen in ALK, RET, and KRAS-altered NSCLC. Previous reports revealed transformed SCLC from EGFR-mutant NSCLC portends very poor prognosis and lack effective treatment. Genomic analyses revealed TP53 and RB1 loss of function increase the risk of SCLC transformation. Little has been reported on the detailed clinicogenomic characteristics and potential therapeutic targets for this patient population. Methods: In this study, we conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of clinical and genomic characteristics of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC transformed to SCLC. Demographic data, treatment course, and clinical molecular testing reports were extracted from electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate survival outcomes. Next generation sequencing-based assays was used to identify EGFR and co-occurring genetic alterations in tissue or plasma before and after SCLC transformation. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) was performed on a patient-derived-xenograft model generated from a patient with EGFR-NSCLC transformed SCLC tumor. Results: A total of 34 patients were identified in our study. Median age at initial diagnosis was 58, and median time to SCLC transformation was 24.2 months. 68% were female and 82% were never smokers. 79% of patients were diagnosed as stage IV disease, and over half had brain metastases at baseline. Median overall survival of the entire cohort was 38.3 months from initial diagnoses and 12.4 months from time of SCLC transformation. Most patients harbored EGFR exon19 deletions as opposed to exon21 L858R alteration. Continuing EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor post-transformation did not improve overall survival compared with those patients where tyrosine kinase inhibitor was stopped in our cohort. In the 20 paired pretransformed and post-transformed patient samples, statistically significant enrichment was seen with PIK3CA alterations (p = 0.04) post-transformation. Profiling of longitudinal liquid biopsy samples suggest emergence of SCLC genetic alterations before biopsy-proven SCLC, as shown by increasing variant allele frequency of TP53, RB1, PIK3CA alterations. ScRNA-seq revealed potential therapeutic targets including DLL3, CD276 (B7-H3) and PTK7 were widely expressed in transformed SCLC. Conclusions: SCLC transformation is a potential treatment resistance mechanism in driver-mutant NSCLC. In our cohort of 34 EGFR-mutant NSCLC, poor prognosis was observed after SCLC transformation. Clinicogenomic analyses of paired and longitudinal samples identified genomic alterations emerging post-transformation and scRNA-seq reveal potential therapeutic targets in this population. Further studies are needed to rigorously validate biomarkers and therapeutic targets for this patient population.
RESUMEN
Introduction: MET amplification is a known resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition has been reported with success in overcoming such resistance and inducing clinical benefit. Resistance mechanisms to dual EGFR-MET inhibition require further investigation and characterization. Methods: Patients with NSCLC with both MET amplification and EGFR mutation who have received crizotinib, capmatinib, savolitinib, or tepotinib plus osimertinib (OSI) after progression on OSI at MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this study. Molecular profiling was completed by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Radiological response was assessed on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results: From March 2016 to March 2022, 23 treatments with dual MET inhibitor and osi were identified with a total of 20 patients included. Three patients received capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Median age was 64 (38-89) years old and 75% were female. MET amplification was detected by FISH in 14 patients in the tissue, NGS in 10 patients, and circulating tumor DNA in three patients. Median MET gene copy number was 13.6 (6.4-20). Overall response rate was 34.8% (eight of 23). In assessable patients, tumor shrinkage was observed in 82.4% (14 of 17). Median time on treatment was 27 months. Two of three patients responded to capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition was overall well tolerated. Two patients on crizotinib plus OSI and one pt on capmatinib plus OSI discontinued therapy due to pneumonitis. One pt discontinued crizotinib plus OSI due to gastrointestinal toxicity. Six patients were still on double TKI treatment. At disease progression to dual EGFR-MET inhibition, FISH and NGS on tumor and plasma were completed in six patients. Notable resistance mechanisms observed include acquired MET D1246H (n = 1), acquired EGFR C797S (n = 2), FGFR2 fusion (n = 1, concurrent with C797S), and EGFR G796S (n = 1, concurrent with C797S). Four patients lost MET amplification. Conclusions: Dual EGFR and MET inhibition yielded high clinical response rate after progression on OSI. Resistance mechanisms to EGFR-MET double TKI inhibition include MET secondary mutation, EGFR secondary mutation, or loss of MET amplification.
