Updated overall survival and ctDNA analysis in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with lazertinib in the phase 1/2 LASER201 study.

BACKGROUND: Lazertinib is a potent, irreversible, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with significant efficacy in patients with EGFR T790M-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This is the final overall survival (OS) report from the phase 1/2 LASER201 study in patients with advanced NSCLC with disease progression on or after prior EGFR TKI therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 20 years, with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC and previous therapy with EGFR TKI. Patients in this integrated analysis received oral lazertinib 240 mg/day. Endpoints included efficacy and safety; exploratory analyses included associations between circulating EGFR-mutant tumor DNA (ctDNA) and efficacy parameters. RESULTS: This integrated analysis included 78 patients in Korea who received second- or later-line lazertinib. The median OS was 38.9 months; estimated survival rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 89.5%, 73.9%, and 52.8%, respectively. The cumulative 12-month incidence of central nervous system progression was 9.4%. EGFR-mutant ctDNA was detected in 46 patients (62.2%) at baseline. The presence of ctDNA at baseline significantly predicted progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and OS. PFS, response rate, and DCR were significantly associated with EGFR-mutant ctDNA clearance at cycle 3; PFS and OS were significantly associated with ctDNA clearance at cycle 5. The safety profile of lazertinib 240 mg/day was consistent with previous findings. CONCLUSIONS: Lazertinib is a promising treatment option for patients with EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC following disease progression on prior EGFR-directed TKIs. Patients in LASER201 experienced prolonged OS, regardless of their EGFR mutation, brain metastases, or prior brain radiation status. Clearance of plasma EGFR mutations after lazertinib was associated with patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03046992.

Electrochemically Active MoO3/TiN Sulfur Host Inducing Dynamically Reinforced Built-in Electric Field for Advanced Lithium-Sulfur Batteries.

Although various electrocatalysts have been developed to ameliorate the shuttle effect and sluggish Li-S conversion kinetics, their electrochemical inertness limits the sufficient performance improvement of lithium-sulfur batteries (LSBs). In this work, an electrochemically active MoO3/TiN-based heterostructure (MOTN) is designed as an efficient sulfur host that can improve the overall electrochemical properties of LSBs via prominent lithiation behaviors. By accommodating Li ions into MoO3 nanoplates, the MOTN host can contribute its own capacity. Furthermore, the Li intercalation process dynamically affects the electronic interaction between MoO3 and TiN and thus significantly reinforces the built-in electric field, which further improves the comprehensive electrocatalytic abilities of the MOTN host. Because of these merits, the MOTN host-based sulfur cathode delivers an exceptional specific capacity of 2520 mA h g-1 at 0.1 C. Furthermore, the cathode exhibits superior rate capability (564 mA h g-1 at 5 C), excellent cycling stability (capacity fade rate of 0.034% per cycle for 1200 cycles at 2 C), and satisfactory areal capacity (6.6 mA h cm-2) under a high sulfur loading of 8.3 mg cm-2. This study provides a novel strategy to develop electrochemically active heterostructured electrocatalysts and rationally manipulate the built-in electric field for achieving high-performance LSBs.

Current status and clinical outcomes of pharmacotherapies according to SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a retrospective single center study.

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic period, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mutated, leading to changes in the disease's severity and the therapeutic effect of drugs accordingly. This study aimed to present the actual use of therapeutics and clinical outcomes based on the prevalence of each variant using real-world data. METHODS: We analyzed the electronic medical records of adult patients admitted to Busan Medical Center after confirming coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from February 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who were at a high risk of disease progression were selected as study subjects, and the time period was classified according to the variants as ancestral strain, Delta variant, or Omicron variant. We compared drug use status and clinical outcomes by time period. RESULTS: Among all 3,091 patients, corticosteroids were the most commonly used therapy (56.0%), being used most frequently in the Delta variant (93.0%), followed by the Omicron variant (42.9%) and ancestral strain (21.2%). Regdanvimab accounted for the majority of therapeutic use in the Delta variant (82.9%) and ancestral strain (76.8%), whereas remdesivir was most frequently used during the Omicron variant period (68.9%). The composite outcomes of death or disease aggravation were ranked in the order of the Delta variant, Omicron variant, and ancestral strain (14.5, 11.9, and 6.0%, respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Regdanvimab was primarily used during the ancestral strain period, regdanvimab plus corticosteroids during the Delta variant period, and remdesivir during the Omicron variant period. The rate of death or disease aggravation was highest in the Delta variant, followed by the Omicron variant and the ancestral strain.

Long-term benefit of sotorasib in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a study called CodeBreaK 100. The CodeBreaK 100 study included patients with non-small-cell lung cancer that had spread outside the lung (advanced). Lung cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer. CodeBreaK 100 specifically looked at patients with a particular change(mutation) in the KRAS gene resulting in the mutated protein called KRAS G12C. The KRAS G12C mutation can lead to development and growth of lung cancer. Patients received a treatment called sotorasib, which has accelerated approval or full approval in over 50 countries for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with the KRAS G12C mutation. The CodeBreaK 100 study looked at whether sotorasib is a safe and effective treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Sotorasib is designed to specifically target and lock the mutated KRAS protein in the inactive state to treat non-small-cell lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In total, 174 adults were treated with sotorasib. Treatment-related side effects were seen in 70% of patients and were severe in 21% of patients. The most common side effects included diarrhea, increased liver enzymes, nausea and tiredness. 70 (41%) patients responded to sotorasib and 144 (84%) patients had tumors that either remained stable or shrunk in size. 29 (41%) patients who responded to sotorasib responded for over 12 months. After 2 years, 9 patients with a response remained on sotorasib; there were no notable increases in tumor size or development of new tumors over this time. There were 5patients who received sotorasib for more than 2 years and continued to respond. Long-term benefit was seen for some patients. Patients also benefitted from treatment when the tumor expressed different amounts of a protein called PD-L1.In total, 33% of patients were still alive after 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results show the long-term benefit of sotorasib therapy for people with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03600883 (CodeBreaK 100) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary: 5-year results from the CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS STUDY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of an ongoing study called CROWN. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two medicines called lorlatinib (Lorbrena) and crizotinib (Xalkori) for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not been treated yet. Everyone in the study had changes in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK, in their cancer cells. The changes in the ALK gene can make cancer grow. This analysis looked at how well lorlatinib and crizotinib worked and their side effects in people with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC after 5 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After observing people for an average of 5 years, researchers found that more people who took lorlatinib were still alive without their cancer getting worse than the people who took crizotinib. At 5 years, the probability of being alive without their cancer getting worse was 60% in people who took lorlatinib compared with 8% in people who took crizotinib. Fewer people who took lorlatinib had their cancer spread within or to the brain than the people who took crizotinib. In more than half of the people who took lorlatinib, tumors that had spread to the brain did not get worse, and no new tumors spread to the brain after 5 years. In contrast, in about half of the people who took crizotinib, tumors that had spread to the brain got worse or new tumors spread to the brain after 16.4 months. More people who took lorlatinib (115 out of 149, or 77%) had severe or life-threatening side effects than people who took crizotinib (81 out of 142, or 57%). These side effects were like the ones reported in the earlier 3-year analysis. WHAT DO THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The 5-year results from the CROWN study showed that more people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment than those who took crizotinib. The 5-year benefit of lorlatinib in people with ALK-positive NSCLC has never been seen before.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03052608 (Phase 3 CROWN study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The phase I/II eNRGy trial: Zenocutuzumab in patients with cancers harboring NRG1 gene fusions.

Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) fusions are oncogenic drivers that have been detected in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and other solid tumors. NRG1 fusions are rare, occurring in less than 1% of solid tumors. Patients with NRG1 fusion positive (NRG1+) cancer have limited therapeutic options. Zenocutuzumab is a novel, bispecific IgG1 antibody that targets both HER2 and HER3 proteins and inhibits NRG1 binding through a 'Dock & Block®' mechanism of action. Here, we describe the rationale and design of the phase II component of the eNRGy trial, part of the overall, open-label phase I/II, multicenter trial exploring the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and antitumor activity of zenocutuzumab in patients with NRG1+ NSCLC, PDAC or other solid tumors.

eNRGy: a clinical trial of zenocutuzumab for cancer caused by NRG1 gene fusionsNRG1 gene fusions are rare mutations that cause cancer cells to grow. These fusions are found in many different types of cancer. Tumors with NRG1 gene fusions do not respond well to standard treatment options. Zenocutuzumab, or Zeno, is a treatment that is being tested to see if it can stop cancer that is growing because of NRG1 gene fusions. Here, we describe the reasoning for and design of an ongoing clinical trial (eNRGy) designed to study the efficacy (how well it works) and safety of Zeno in patients with cancer that has NRG1 gene fusions. The eNRGy trial is recruiting patients with cancer that has NRG1 gene fusions, including non-small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and others. Patients who join this trial will receive Zeno once every 2 weeks until their cancer grows. The main goal (primary end point) of this trial is to determine the percentage of patients whose tumors decrease in size by 30% or more. The eNRGy trial is currently enrolling patients. For more information, refer to ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02912949), visit https://nrg1.com/, or call 1-833-NRG-1234.

Pralsetinib in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: A plain language summary of the ARROW study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research study called ARROW, which tested a medicine called pralsetinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, and other advanced solid tumours caused by a change in a gene called RET. For the purposes of this summary, only patients with NSCLC with a change in RET called fusion (RET fusion+) are highlighted. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In total, 281 patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC had taken part in this study across the USA, Europe, and Asia. Patients were asked to take four pills (adding up to 400 mg) of pralsetinib each day and were checked for any changes in their tumours, as well as for any side effects. After an average of 8 months of treatment with pralsetinib, 72% of previously untreated patients and 59% of patients who had previously received chemotherapy had considerable shrinkage of their tumours. Among 10 patients with tumours which had spread to the brain (all of whom had received previous treatments), 70% had their tumours shrink greatly in the brain after treatment with pralsetinib. On average, patients lived with little to no tumour growth for 16 months. In previously untreated patients, the most common severe side effects that were considered related to pralsetinib treatment were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils and lymphocytes), increased blood pressure, and an increase in a blood protein called creatine phosphokinase. In previously treated patients, the severe side effects were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils, lymphocytes, and leukocytes), increased blood pressure, and low levels of red blood cells. In both untreated and previously treated patients, the most common severe side effects that required hospital attention were lung inflammation/swelling causing shortness of breath (pneumonitis) and lung infection (pneumonia). WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, the ARROW study showed that pralsetinib was effective in shrinking tumours in patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC regardless of previous treatment history. The recorded side effects were expected in patients receiving this type of medicine. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03037385 (ARROW) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 76% (95% CI, 68 to 83) of the patients in the lorlatinib group and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 66) of those in the crizotinib group; among those with measurable brain metastases, 82% (95% CI, 57 to 96) and 23% (95% CI, 5 to 54), respectively, had an intracranial response, and 71% of the patients who received lorlatinib had an intracranial complete response. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hyperlipidemia, edema, increased weight, peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive effects. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly altered lipid levels) than crizotinib (in 72% vs. 56%). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred in 7% and 9% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.).

First-in-human study of oleclumab, a potent, selective anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody, alone or in combination with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: CD73 upregulation in tumors leads to local immunosuppression. This phase I, first-in-human study evaluated oleclumab (MEDI9447), an anti-CD73 human IgG1λ monoclonal antibody, alone or with durvalumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received oleclumab 5-40 mg/kg (dose-escalation) or 40 mg/kg (dose-expansion) intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W), alone (escalation only) or with durvalumab 10 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. RESULTS: 192 patients were enrolled, 66 during escalation and 126 (42 CRC, 42 PDAC, 42 NSCLC) during expansion. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred during escalation. In the monotherapy and combination therapy escalation cohorts, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 55 and 54%, respectively, the most common being fatigue (17 and 25%). In the CRC, PDAC, and NSCLC expansion cohorts, 60, 57, and 45% of patients had TRAEs, respectively; the most common were fatigue (15%), diarrhea (9%), and rash (7%). Free soluble CD73 and CD73 expression on peripheral T cells and tumor cells showed sustained decreases, accompanied by reduced CD73 enzymatic activity in tumor cells. Objective response rate during escalation was 0%. Response rates in the CRC, PDAC, and NSCLC expansion cohorts were 2.4% (1 complete response [CR]), 4.8% (1 CR, 1 partial response [PR]), and 9.5% (4 PRs), respectively; 6-month progression-free survival rates were 5.4, 13.2, and 16.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Oleclumab ± durvalumab had a manageable safety profile, with pharmacodynamic activity reflecting oleclumab's mechanism of action. Evidence of antitumor activity was observed in tumor types that are generally immunotherapy resistant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02503774; date of registration, July 17, 2015.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

Long-term outcomes in patients with advanced and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who completed 2 years of immune checkpoint inhibitors or achieved a durable response after discontinuation without disease progression: Multicenter, real-world data (KCSG LU20-11).

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown significant improvements in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One of the major issues with ICIs is determining the optimal treatment duration. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study analyzed clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of ICI therapy or were treated for more than 6 months and then discontinued ICIs without disease progression at 11 medical centers in Korea between August 2017 and December 2020. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients who completed 2 years of ICIs were reviewed. The median durations of treatment and follow-up were 24.0 and 33.9 months, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 85.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) periods were not reached. After completion, the PFS and OS rates were 81.1% and 96.4%, respectively, at 12 months. Forty-three patients were identified who discontinued ICIs without disease progression: 26 (60.5%) for adverse events and 17 (39.5%) for other causes. The median durations of treatment and follow-up were 10.5 and 21.2 months, respectively. The ORR was 90.7%. The median PFS and OS periods were not reached. After discontinuation, the PFS and OS rates were 71.0% and 90.0%, respectively, at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly high proportion of patients who completed 2 years of ICI therapy continued to experience long-term PFS. Even if ICIs are discontinued after 6 months in patients without disease progression, they may achieve a durable response and facilitate long-term survival. LAY SUMMARY: The optimal treatment duration for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains to be determined. This study reports the long-term outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who completed 2 years of ICI therapy or achieved a durable response after the discontinuation of ICIs without disease progression in real-world practice. A significantly high proportion of patients who completed 2 years of ICIs continued to experience long-term progression-free survival. In addition, even if ICIs are discontinued after 6 months in patients without disease progression, they may achieve a durable response and facilitate long-term survival.

First-in-human phase 1/1b study to evaluate sitravatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Sitravatinib (MGCD516), a spectrum-selective receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MERTK) and split kinase family receptors, has demonstrated preclinical anti-tumor activity and modulation of tumor microenvironment. This first-in-human phase 1/1b study included sitravatinib dose exploration and anti-tumor activity evaluation in selected patients with advanced solid tumors. Primary objectives included assessment of safety, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of sitravatinib. Secondary objectives included identifying doses for further investigation and exploring molecular markers for patient selection. In phase 1, 32 patients received 10-200 mg, while phase 1b dose expansion comprised 161 patients (150 mg n = 99, 120 mg n = 62). Maximum tolerated dose was determined as 150 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicity was reported in 4/28 evaluable phase 1 patients (three at 200 mg, one at 80 mg). In phase 1b, 120 mg was defined as the recommended dose due to tolerability. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 174/193 patients (90.2%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in 103 patients (53.4%). Most common TRAEs were diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension and nausea; TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 26 patients (13.5%) and death in one patient. Sitravatinib was steadily absorbed and declined from plasma with a terminal elimination half-life of 42.1-51.5 h following oral administration. Overall objective response rate was 11.8% in phase 1b, 13.2% in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 4.2% in patients with NSCLC with prior checkpoint inhibitor experience. Sitravatinib demonstrated manageable safety and modest clinical activity in solid tumors. NCT02219711 (first posted August 14, 2014).

Effectiveness and Safety of Regdanvimab in Patients With Mild-To-Moderate COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Regdanvimab has decreased the time to clinical recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lowered the rate of oxygen therapy according to the results from phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial. More information is needed about the effects and safety of regdanvimab. METHODS: We analyzed data for patients with high-risk mild or moderate COVID-19 being admitted to Busan Medical Center between December 1, 2020 and April 16, 2021. A propensity score (PS) matched analysis was conducted to compare patients treated with and without regdanvimab. The primary outcome was in-hospital death or disease aggravation which means the need for oxygen therapy (low- or high-flow oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation) and secondary outcomes comprised the length of hospital stay and adverse reactions. RESULTS: Among 1,617 selected patients, 970 (60.0%) were indicated for regdanvimab. Of these, 377 (38.9%) were administered with regdanvimab. Among a 1:1 PS-matched cohort of 377 patients each treated with and without regdanvimab, 19 (5%) and 81 (21.5%) reached the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation, respectively (absolute risk difference, -16.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.1, -11.7; relative risk difference, 76.5%; P < 0.001). Regdanvimab significantly reduced the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation in univariate (odds ratio [OR], 0.194; 95% CI, 0.112-0.320; P < 0.001) and multivariable-adjusted analyses (OR, 0.169; 95% CI, 0.095-0.289; P < 0.001). The hospital stay was shorter for the group with than without regdanvimab. Some hematological adverse reactions were more frequent in the group without regdanvimab, but other adverse reactions did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Regdanvimab was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease aggravation without increasing adverse reactions.

Pralsetinib for RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Oncogenic alterations in RET have been identified in multiple tumour types, including 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study done at 71 sites (community and academic cancer centres) in 13 countries (Belgium, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later limited to 0-1 in a protocol amendment) were enrolled. In phase 2, patients received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib, and could continue treatment until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Phase 2 primary endpoints were overall response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1·1 and assessed by blinded independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease who had received platinum-based chemotherapy or were treatment-naive because they were ineligible for standard therapy. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03037385, and enrolment of patients with treatment-naive RET fusion-positive NSCLC was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. FINDINGS: Of 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC enrolled between March 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020 (data cutoff), 92 with previous platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 who were treatment-naive received pralsetinib before July 11, 2019 (efficacy enrolment cutoff); 87 previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naive patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease. Overall responses were recorded in 53 (61%; 95% CI 50-71) of 87 patients with previous platinum-based chemotherapy, including five (6%) patients with a complete response; and 19 (70%; 50-86) of 27 treatment-naive patients, including three (11%) with a complete response. In 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (43 patients [18%]), hypertension (26 [11%]), and anaemia (24 [10%]); there were no treatment-related deaths in this population. INTERPRETATION: Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, promising, once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Blueprint Medicines.

Olmutinib in T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer after failure of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy: A global, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this open-label, international phase 2 study, the authors assessed the efficacy and safety of olmutinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had a confirmed T790M mutation and disease progression on previous epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Patients aged ≥20 years received once-daily oral olmutinib 800 mg continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (patients who had a confirmed best overall response of a complete or partial response), assessed by central review. Secondary endpoints included the disease control rate, the duration of objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). RESULTS: Overall, 162 patients (median age, 63 years; women, >60%) were enrolled from 68 sites in 9 countries. At the time of database cutoff, 23.5% of enrolled patients remained on treatment. The median treatment duration was 6.5 months (range, 0.03-21.68 months). Overall, 46.3% of patients (95% CI, 38.4%-54.3%) had a confirmed objective response (all partial responses). The best overall response (the objective response rate regardless of confirmation) was 51.9% (84 patients; 95% CI, 43.9%-59.8%). The confirmed disease control rate for all patients was 86.4% (95% CI, 80.2%-91.3%). The median duration of objective response was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.3-15.4 months). Estimated median progression-free survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 6.9-12.3 months), and estimated median overall survival was 19.7 months (95% CI, 15.1 months to not reached). All patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, and 71.6% of patients had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Olmutinib has meaningful clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer who received previous epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

A Phase 1 study of gefitinib combined with durvalumab in EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR mutation-positive locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) induce cytolysis and release of tumour proteins, which can stimulate antigen-specific T cells. The safety and efficacy of durvalumab and gefitinib in combination for TKI-naive patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC was evaluated. METHODS: This Phase 1 open-label, multicentre trial (NCT02088112) was conducted in 56 patients with NSCLC. Dose expansion permitted TKI-naive patients, primarily with activating L858R or Ex19del EGFRm. Arms 1 + 1a received concurrent therapy; Arm 2 received 4 weeks of gefitinib induction followed by concurrent therapy. RESULTS: From dose escalation, the recommended dose of durvalumab was 10 mg/kg Q2W with 250 mg QD gefitinib. Pharmacokinetics were as expected, consistent with inhibition of soluble PD-L1 and no treatment-emergent immunogenicity. In dose expansion, 35% of patients had elevated liver enzymes leading to drug discontinuation. In Arms 1 + 1a, objective response rate was 63.3% (95% CI: 43.9-80.1), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.1 months (95% CI: 5.5-15.2) and median response duration was 9.2 months (95% CI: 3.7-14.0). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab and gefitinib in combination had higher toxicity than either agent alone. No significant increase in PFS was detected compared with historical controls. Therefore, concurrent PD-L1 inhibitors with gefitinib should be generally avoided in TKI-naive patients with EGFRm NSCLC.

A randomised phase 2b study comparing the efficacy and safety of belotecan vs. topotecan as monotherapy for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy/safety of the camptothecin analogues belotecan and topotecan for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients were randomised (1:1) to receive five consecutive daily intravenous infusions of topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) or belotecan (0.5 mg/m2), every 3 weeks, for six cycles. Main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerability and toxicity. The study statistical plan was non-inferiority design with ORR as the endpoint. RESULTS: In the belotecan vs. topotecan groups, ORR (primary endpoint) was 33% vs. 21% (p = 0.09) and DCR was 85% vs. 70% (p = 0.030). PFS was not different between groups. Median OS was significantly longer with belotecan than with topotecan (13.2 vs. 8.2 months, HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99), particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease (i.e., extensive-stage disease, time to relapse: 3-6 months), or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2. More belotecan recipients completed all treatment cycles (53% vs. 35%; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy/safety of belotecan warrants further evaluation in Phase 3 trials. Belotecan potentially offers an alternative to topotecan for sensitive-relapsed SCLC, particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease, or poor performance.

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).

Discovery of acquired molecular signature on immune checkpoint inhibitors in paired tumor tissues.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has an emerging role in several types of cancer. However, the mechanisms of acquired resistance (AR) to ICI have not been elucidated yet. To identify these mechanisms, we analyzed the pre- and post-ICI paired tumor samples in patients with AR. METHODS: Six patients with renal cell carcinoma, urothelial cell carcinoma, or head and neck cancer, who showed an initial response to ICI followed by progression and had available paired tissue samples, were retrospectively analyzed. Whole exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, and multiplex immunohistochemistry were performed on pre-treatment and resistant tumor samples. RESULTS: The median time to AR was 370 days (range, 210 to 739). Increased expression of alternative immune checkpoints including TIM3, LAG3, and PD-1 as well as increased CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were observed in post-treatment tumor than in pre-treatment tumor of a renal cell carcinoma patient. In contrast, CD8+ T cells and immunosuppressive markers were all decreased at AR in another patient with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. This patient had an evident APOBEC-associated signature, and the tumor mutation burden increased at AR. Resistant tumor tissue of this patient harbored a missense mutation (E542K) in PIK3CA. No significant aberrations of antigen-presenting machinery or IFN-γ pathway were detected in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings suggest that the observed increase in immunosuppressive markers after ICI might contribute to AR. Moreover, APOBEC-mediated PIK3CA mutagenesis might be an AR mechanism. To validate these mechanisms of AR, further studies with enough sample size are required.

Pan-cancer methylation analysis reveals an inverse correlation of tumor immunogenicity with methylation aberrancy.

Tumor immunogenicity is driven by various genomic and transcriptomic factors but the association with the overall status of methylation aberrancy is not well established. We analyzed The Cancer Genome Atlas pan-cancer database to investigate whether the overall methylation aberrancy links to the immune evasion of tumor. We created the definitions of hypermethylation burden, hypomethylation burden and methylation burden to establish the values that represent the degree of methylation aberrancy from human methylation 450 K array data. Both hypermethylation burden and hypomethylation burden significantly correlated with global methylation level as well as methylation subtypes defined in previous literatures. Then we evaluated whether methylation burden correlates with tumor immunogenicity and found that methylation burden showed a significant negative correlation with cytolytic activity score, which represent cytotoxic T cell activity, in pan-cancer (Spearman rho = - 0.37, p < 0.001) and 30 of 33 individual cancer types. Furthermore, this correlation was independent of mutation burden and chromosomal instability in multivariate regression analysis. We validated the findings in the external cohorts and outcomes of patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, which showed that high methylation burden group had significantly poor progression-free survival (Hazard ratio 1.74, p = 0.038). Overall, the degree of methylation aberrancy negatively correlated with tumor immunogenicity. These findings emphasize the importance of methylation aberrancy for tumors to evade immune surveillance and warrant further development of methylation biomarker.