Antibody-drug conjugates in lung and breast cancer: current evidence and future directions-a position statement from the ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation.

Following the approval of the first antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the early 2000s, development has increased dramatically, with 14 ADCs now approved and >100 in clinical development. In lung cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is approved in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-mutated, unresectable or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, with ADCs targeting HER3 (patritumab deruxtecan), trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 [datopotamab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan (SG)] and mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (telisotuzumab vedotin) in late-stage clinical development. In breast cancer, several agents are already approved and widely used, including trastuzumab emtansine, T-DXd and SG, and multiple late-stage trials are ongoing. Thus, in the coming years, we are likely to see significant changes to treatment algorithms. As the number of available ADCs increases, biomarkers (of response and resistance) to better select patients are urgently needed. Biopsy sample collection at the time of treatment selection and incorporation of translational research into clinical trial designs are therefore critical. Biopsy samples taken peri- and post-ADC treatment combined with functional genomics screens could provide insights into response/resistance mechanisms as well as the impact of ADCs on tumour biology and the tumour microenvironment, which could improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying these complex molecules. Many ADCs are undergoing evaluation as combination therapy, but a high bar should be set to progress clinical evaluation of any ADC-based combination, particularly considering the high cost and potential toxicity implications. Efforts to optimise ADC dosing/duration, sequencing and the potential for ADC rechallenge are also important, especially considering sustainability aspects. The ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation are driving strong collaborations in this field and promoting the generation/sharing of databases, repositories and registries to enable greater access to data. This will allow the most important research questions to be identified and prioritised, which will ultimately accelerate progress and help to improve patient outcomes.

Lung Cancer Research and Treatment: Global Perspectives and Strategic Calls to Action.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains a critical public health issue, presenting multifaceted challenges in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This article aims to review the current landscape of lung cancer research and management, delineate the persistent challenges, and outline pragmatic solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Global experts from academia, regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), professional societies, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and patient advocacy groups were gathered by the New York Lung Cancer Foundation to review the state of the art in lung cancer and to formulate calls to action. RESULTS: Improving lung cancer management and research involves promoting tobacco cessation, identifying individuals at risk who could benefit from early detection programs, and addressing treatment-related toxicities. Efforts should focus on conducting well-designed trials to determine the optimal treatment sequence. Research into innovative biomarkers and therapies is crucial for more personalized treatment. Ensuring access to appropriate care for all patients, whether enrolled in clinical trials or not, must remain a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer is a major health burden worldwide, and its treatment has become increasingly complex over the past two decades. Improvement in lung cancer management and research requires unified messaging and global collaboration, expanded education, and greater access to screening, biomarker testing, treatment, as well as increased representativeness, participation, and diversity in clinical trials.

Translational insights and overall survival in the U31402-A-U102 study of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) is broadly expressed in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is the target of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd), an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a HER3 antibody attached to a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. U31402-A-U102 is an ongoing phase I study of HER3-DXd in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC that progressed after EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) who received HER3-DXd 5.6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks had a confirmed objective response rate (cORR) of 39%. We present median overall survival (OS) with extended follow-up in a larger population of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and an exploratory analysis in those with acquired genomic alterations potentially associated with resistance to HER3-DXd. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Safety was assessed in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC previously treated with EGFR TKI who received HER3-DXd 5.6 mg/kg; efficacy was assessed in those who also had prior PBC. RESULTS: In the safety population (N = 102), median treatment duration was 5.5 (range 0.7-27.5) months. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 76.5% of patients; the overall safety profile was consistent with previous reports. In 78/102 patients who had prior third-generation EGFR TKI and PBC, cORR by blinded independent central review (as per RECIST v1.1) was 41.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.0% to 52.7%], median progression-free survival was 6.4 (95% CI 4.4-10.8) months, and median OS was 16.2 (95% CI 11.2-21.9) months. Patients had diverse mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance at baseline. At tumor progression, acquired mutations in ERBB3 and TOP1 that might confer resistance to HER3-DXd were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after EGFR TKI and PBC, HER3-DXd treatment was associated with a clinically meaningful OS. The tumor biomarker characterization comprised the first description of potential mechanisms of resistance to HER3-DXd therapy.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion. RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

Amivantamab plus lazertinib versus osimertinib in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with biomarkers of high-risk disease: a secondary analysis from MARIPOSA.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; P < 0.001], including those with a history of brain metastases (HR 0.69). Patients with TP53 co-mutations, detectable circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline liver metastases, and those without ctDNA clearance on treatment have poor prognoses. We evaluated outcomes in these high-risk subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). RESULTS: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.

IMscin001 Part 2: a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre study examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of atezolizumab subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and pharmacokinetics comparison with other approved indications.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab intravenous (IV) is approved for the treatment of various solid tumours. To improve treatment convenience and health care efficiencies, a coformulation of atezolizumab and recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 was developed for subcutaneous (SC) use. Part 2 of IMscin001 (NCT03735121) was a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study comparing the drug exposure of atezolizumab SC with atezolizumab IV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to receive atezolizumab SC (1875 mg; n = 247) or IV (1200 mg; n = 124) every 3 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were cycle 1 observed trough serum concentration (Ctrough) and model-predicted area under the curve from days 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 d). The secondary endpoints were steady-state exposure, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Exposure following atezolizumab SC was then compared with historical atezolizumab IV values across approved indications. RESULTS: The study met both of its co-primary endpoints: cycle 1 observed Ctrough {SC: 89 µg/ml [coefficient of variation (CV): 43%] versus IV: 85 µg/ml (CV: 33%); geometric mean ratio (GMR), 1.05 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.24]} and model-predicted AUC0-21 d [SC: 2907 µg d/ml (CV: 32%) versus IV: 3328 µg d/ml (CV: 20%); GMR, 0.87 (90% CI 0.83-0.92)]. Progression-free survival [hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI 0.82-1.41)], objective response rate (SC: 12% versus IV: 10%), and incidence of anti-atezolizumab antibodies (SC: 19.5% versus IV: 13.9%) were similar between arms. No new safety concerns were identified. Ctrough and AUC0-21 d for atezolizumab SC were consistent with the other approved atezolizumab IV indications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IV, atezolizumab SC demonstrated noninferior drug exposure at cycle 1. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between arms and consistent with the known profile for atezolizumab IV. Similar drug exposure and clinical outcomes following SC and IV administration support the use of atezolizumab SC as an alternative to atezolizumab IV.

Overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab after chemotherapy in resected stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: IMpower010 (NCT02486718) demonstrated significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) following platinum-based chemotherapy in the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and all stage II-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) populations, at the DFS interim analysis. Results of the first interim analysis of overall survival (OS) are reported here. PATIENT AND METHODS: The design, participants, and primary-endpoint DFS outcomes have been reported for this phase III, open-label, 1 : 1 randomised study of atezolizumab (1200 mg q3w; 16 cycles) versus BSC after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (1-4 cycles) in adults with completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC (per the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, 7th edition). Key secondary endpoints included OS in the stage IB-IIIA intent-to-treat (ITT) population and safety in randomised treated patients. The first pre-specified interim analysis of OS was conducted after 251 deaths in the ITT population. Exploratory analyses included OS by baseline PD-L1 expression level (SP263 assay). RESULTS: At a median of 45.3 months' follow-up on 18 April 2022, 127 of 507 patients (25%) in the atezolizumab arm and 124 of 498 (24.9%) in the BSC arm had died. The median OS in the ITT population was not estimable; the stratified hazard ratio (HR) was 0.995 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.28]. The stratified OS HRs (95% CI) were 0.95 (0.74-1.24) in the stage II-IIIA (n = 882), 0.71 (0.49-1.03) in the stage II-IIIA PD-L1 tumour cell (TC) ≥1% (n = 476), and 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.78) in the stage II-IIIA PD-L1 TC ≥50% (n = 229) populations. Atezolizumab-related adverse event incidences remained unchanged since the previous analysis [grade 3/4 in 53 (10.7%) and grade 5 in 4 (0.8%) of 495 patients, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Although OS remains immature for the ITT population, these data indicate a positive trend favouring atezolizumab in PD-L1 subgroup analyses, primarily driven by the PD-L1 TC ≥50% stage II-IIIA subgroup. No new safety signals were observed after 13 months' additional follow-up. Together, these findings support the positive benefit-risk profile of adjuvant atezolizumab in this setting.

Randomized open-label controlled study of cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus chemotherapy in HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with resistance to immunotherapy: ATALANTE-1.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) ultimately progress either rapidly (primary resistance) or after durable benefit (secondary resistance). The cancer vaccine OSE2101 may invigorate antitumor-specific immune responses after ICB failure. The objective of ATALANTE-1 was to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATALANTE-1 was a two-step open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSE2101 compared to standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT). Patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2-positive advanced NSCLC without actionable alterations, failing sequential or concurrent CT and ICB were randomized (2 : 1) to OSE2101 or SoC (docetaxel or pemetrexed). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim OS futility analysis was planned as per Fleming design. In April 2020 at the time of interim analysis, a decision was taken to prematurely stop the accrual due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Final analysis was carried out in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with ICB secondary resistance defined as failure after ICB monotherapy second line ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (139 OSE2101, 80 SoC); 118 had secondary resistance to sequential ICB. Overall, median OS non-significantly favored OSE2101 over SoC {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.86 [0.62-1.19], P = 0.36}. In the secondary resistance subgroup, OSE2101 significantly improved median OS versus SoC [11.1 versus 7.5 months; HR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.38-0.91), P = 0.017], and significantly improved post-progression survival (HR 0.46, P = 0.004), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status deterioration (HR 0.43, P = 0.006) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status compared to SoC (P = 0.045). Six-month disease control rates and progression-free survival were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse effects occurred in 11.4% of patients with OSE2101 and 35.1% in SoC (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and secondary resistance to immunotherapy, OSE2101 increased survival with better safety compared to CT. Further evaluation in this population is warranted.

Effectiveness of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone or in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in first-line (1L) non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Nsq-NSCLC) with PD-L1-high expression using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death protein (death-ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] therapy alone [cancer immunotherapy (CIT)-mono] or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CIT-chemo) is used as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study compared clinical outcomes with CIT-mono versus CIT-chemo in the specific clinical scenario of non-squamous (Nsq)-NSCLC with a high PD-L1 expression of ≥50% [tumor proportion score (TPS) or tumor cells (TC)]. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a real-world de-identified database. Patients with metastatic Nsq-NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression initiating first-line CIT-mono or CIT-chemo between 24 October 2016 and 28 February 2019 were followed up until 28 February 2020. We compared overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted (aHR) for differences in baseline key prognostic characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. RESULTS: Patients with PD-L1-high Nsq-NSCLC treated with CIT-mono (n = 351) were older and less often presented with de novo stage IV disease than patients treated with CIT-chemo (n = 169). With a median follow-up of 19.9 months for CIT-chemo versus 23.5 months for CIT-mono, median OS and rwPFS did not differ between the two groups [median OS: CIT-chemo, 21.0 months versus CIT-mono, 22.1 months, aHR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.39, P = 0.83; median rwPFS: CIT-chemo, 10.8 months versus CIT-mono, 11.5 months, aHR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.37, P = 0.81]. CIT-chemo showed significant and meaningful improvement in OS and rwPFS versus CIT-mono only in the never-smoker subgroup, albeit among a small sample of patients (n = 50; OS HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.83, interaction P = 0.02; rwPFS HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, interaction P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Except in the subgroup of never-smoker patients, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line CIT treatment does not appear to impact survival outcomes in Nsq-NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship. DESIGN AND METHODS: Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research. RESULTS: We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Intracranial and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with second-generation ALK TKIs.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has substantial activity against ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study assessed the overall, intracranial, and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in ALK-positive NSCLC that progressed on second-generation ALK TKIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the ongoing phase II study (NCT01970865), patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC treated with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI ± chemotherapy were enrolled in expansion cohorts (EXP) based on treatment history. Overall, intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity were assessed independently per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. RESULTS: Of the 139 patients with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B-5), 28 received one prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B), 65 two prior ALK TKIs (EXP4), and 46 three prior ALK TKIs (EXP5). In EXP3B-5, the objective response rate (ORR) [95% confidence intervals] was 39.6% (31.4-48.2), intracranial ORR (IC-ORR) was 56.1% (42.4-69.3), extracranial ORR (EC-ORR) was 36.7% (28.7-45.3), median duration of response (DOR) was 9.6 months [5.6-16.7; IC-DOR, 12.4 (6.0-37.1); EC-DOR, 9.7 (6.1-33.3)], median progression-free survival was 6.6 (5.4-7.4) months, and median overall survival was 20.7 months (16.1-30.3). In EXP3B, the ORR was 42.9% (24.5-62.8), the IC-ORR was 66.7% (29.9-92.5), and the EC-ORR was 32.1% (15.9-52.4). In EXP4 and EXP5, the ORR was 38.7% (29.6-48.5), the IC-ORR was 54.2% (39.2-68.6), and the EC-ORR was 37.8% (28.8-47.5). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib had clinically meaningful intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity in the post-second-generation ALK TKI setting, with elevated intracranial versus extracranial ORR, particularly in patients with fewer lines of therapy.

Pemetrexed plus platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: protocol-specified final analysis from KEYNOTE-189.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III KEYNOTE-189 study (NCT02578680), pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy (pemetrexed-platinum) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum. We report updated efficacy outcomes from the protocol-specified final analysis, including outcomes in patients who crossed over to pembrolizumab from pemetrexed-platinum and in patients who completed 35 cycles (∼2 years) of pembrolizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 410) or placebo (n = 206) every 3 weeks (for up to 35 cycles, ∼2 years) plus four cycles of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and investigators' choice of cisplatin (75 mg/m2) or carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg·min/ml) every 3 weeks, followed by pemetrexed until progression. Patients assigned to placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum could cross over to pembrolizumab upon progression if eligibility criteria were met. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 31.0 months, pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum continued to improve OS [hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.69] and PFS (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59) over placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Objective response rate (ORR) (48.3% versus 19.9%) and time to second/subsequent tumor progression on next-line treatment (PFS2; HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.61) were improved in patients who received pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum. Eighty-four patients (40.8%) from the placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum group crossed over to pembrolizumab on-study. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 72.1% of patients receiving pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum and 66.8% of patients receiving placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum. Fifty-six patients completed 35 cycles (∼2 years) of pembrolizumab; ORR was 85.7% and 53 (94.6%) were alive at data cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum continued to show improved efficacy outcomes compared with placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum, with manageable toxicity. These findings support first-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

Clinical definition of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months.

Genome-wide profiling of non-smoking-related lung cancer cells reveals common RB1 rearrangements associated with histopathologic transformation in EGFR-mutant tumors.

BACKGROUND: The etiology and the molecular basis of lung adenocarcinomas (LuADs) in nonsmokers are currently unknown. Furthermore, the scarcity of available primary cultures continues to hamper our biological understanding of non-smoking-related lung adenocarcinomas (NSK-LuADs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established patient-derived cancer cell (PDC) cultures from metastatic NSK-LuADs, including two pairs of matched EGFR-mutant PDCs before and after resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and then performed whole-exome and RNA sequencing to delineate their genomic architecture. For validation, we analyzed independent cohorts of primary LuADs. RESULTS: In addition to known non-smoker-associated alterations (e.g. RET, ALK, EGFR, and ERBB2), we discovered novel fusions and recurrently mutated genes, including ATF7IP, a regulator of gene expression, that was inactivated in 5% of primary LuAD cases. We also found germline mutations at dominant familiar-cancer genes, highlighting the importance of genetic predisposition in the origin of a subset of NSK-LuADs. Furthermore, there was an over-representation of inactivating alterations at RB1, mostly through complex intragenic rearrangements, in treatment-naive EGFR-mutant LuADs. Three EGFR-mutant and one EGFR-wild-type tumors acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, respectively, and histology on re-biopsies revealed the development of small-cell lung cancer/squamous cell carcinoma (SCLC/LuSCC) transformation. These features were consistent with RB1 inactivation and acquired EGFR-T790M mutation or FGFR3-TACC3 fusion in EGFR-mutant tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We found recurrent alterations in LuADs that deserve further exploration. Our work also demonstrates that a subset of NSK-LuADs arises within cancer-predisposition syndromes. The preferential occurrence of RB1 inactivation, via complex rearrangements, found in EGFR-mutant tumors appears to favor SCLC/LuSCC transformation under growth-inhibition pressures. Thus RB1 inactivation may predict the risk of LuAD transformation to a more aggressive type of lung cancer, and may need to be considered as a part of the clinical management of NSK-LuADs patients.

Use of archival versus newly collected tumor samples for assessing PD-L1 expression and overall survival: an updated analysis of KEYNOTE-010 trial.

BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-010, pembrolizumab versus docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death-1 protein (PD)-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A prespecified exploratory analysis compared outcomes in patients based on PD-L1 expression in archival versus newly collected tumor samples using recently updated survival data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PD-L1 was assessed centrally by immunohistochemistry (22C3 antibody) in archival or newly collected tumor samples. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W for 24 months or until progression/intolerable toxicity/other reason. Response was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks, survival every 2 months. Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and ≥1%; pembrolizumab doses were pooled in this analysis. RESULTS: At date cut-off of 24 March 2017, median follow-up was 31 months (range 23-41) representing 18 additional months of follow-up from the primary analysis. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel continued to improve OS in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-expressing advanced NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) was 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57, 0.77]. Of 1033 patients analyzed, 455(44%) were enrolled based on archival samples and 578 (56%) on newly collected tumor samples. Approximately 40% of archival samples and 45% of newly collected tumor samples were PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. For TPS ≥50%, the OS HRs were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.91) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.56) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In patients with TPS ≥1%, OS HRs were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.93) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.73) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In TPS ≥50%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.63 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.89)] and newly collected samples [0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.72)]. In patients with TPS ≥1%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.82 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.02)] and newly collected samples [0.83 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.02)]. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab continued to improve OS over docetaxel in intention to treat population and in subsets of patients with newly collected and archival samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01905657.

Clinical utility of plasma-based digital next-generation sequencing in patients with advance-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tumor samples for tissue genotyping.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of tumor biopsies from patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas yield insufficient tissue for successful molecular subtyping. We have analyzed the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with inadequate tumor samples for tissue genotyping. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted the study in a multi-institutional prospective cohort of clinically unselected patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tissue for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genotyping across 12 Spanish institutions (n = 93). ctDNA NGS was carried out by Guardant Health (Guardant360, Redwood City, CA), using a hybrid-capture-based 73-gene panel. Variants were deemed actionable if they were part of the OncoKB precision oncology knowledge database and classified in four levels of actionability based on their clinical or preclinical evidence for drug response. RESULTS: Eighty-three out of 93 patients (89%) had detectable levels of ctDNA. Potentially actionable level 1-4 genomic alterations were detected in 53 cases (57%), of which 13 (14%) had level 1-2A alterations (Food and Drug Administration-approved and standard-care biomarkers according to lung cancer guidelines). Frequencies of each genomic alteration in ctDNA were consistent with those observed in unselected pulmonary adenocarcinomas. The majority of the patients (62%), particularly those with actionable alterations (87%), had more than one pathogenic variant in ctDNA. The median turnaround time to genomic results was 13 days. Twelve patients (13%) received genotype-matched therapies based on ctDNA results, deriving the expected clinical benefit. Patients with co-occurring pathogenic alterations had a significantly shorter median overall survival as compared with patients without co-occurring pathogenic alteration (multivariate hazard ratio = 5.35, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Digital NGS of ctDNA in lung cancers with insufficient tumor samples for tissue sequencing detects actionable variants that frequently co-occur with other potentially clinically relevant genomic alterations, allowing timely initiation of genotype-matched therapies.

Osimertinib and other third-generation EGFR TKI in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients.

Osimertinib was the first third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to receive FDA and EMA approval for metastatic EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have acquired the EGFR T790M resistance mutation. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of osimertinib in this patient population and clinical trials of other third-generation EGFR TKI are currently under way. Additional challenges in this patient population, such as the upfront efficacy of osimertinib, validation of T790M in liquid biopsies as a dynamic predictive marker of efficacy, along with combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors are being explored, representing an extraordinary time of development for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261). Patients and methods: Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population. Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01802632; NCT02094261.