A phase 2 trial combining afatinib with cetuximab in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) mutations are the third most common EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are associated with primary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There is evidence of activity of combining EGFR TKIs with monoclonal antibodies. This study reports on the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with cetuximab. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR ex20ins mutation were treated with afatinib 40 mg once daily in combination with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) at 18 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients started treatment, with a median age of 65 years (range, 40-80 years), 78% female, and 95% White. The study achieved its primary end point with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks, an overall response rate (ORR) of 43%, and a 32% confirmed ORR. Best responses were partial (n = 16), stable (n = 16), progressive disease (n = 2), or not evaluable (n = 3). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.3 months) and median overall survival was 16.8 months (95% CI, 10.7-25.8 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (70%), rash (65%), dry skin (59%), paronychia (54%), and erythema (43%). Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 54% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with afatinib and cetuximab demonstrated antitumor activity with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks and a 32% confirmed ORR. Toxicity was significant, although manageable, after dose reduction.

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRASG12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRASG12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRASG12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRASG12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRASG12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. FUNDING: Amgen.

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).

Tepotinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations.

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.).

Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

BACKGROUND: Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

Pharmacokinetically-guided dosing to improve the efficacy of brigatinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Brigatinib was recently approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer and is dosed according to a one-dose-fits-all paradigm. We aimed to identify a pharmacokinetically-guided precision dosing strategy to improve treatment response with brigatinib through simulations using a previously published pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. Dosing strategies explored were the approved 180 mg QD; the highest tolerable dose tested in clinical trials: 240 mg QD; and two precision dosing strategies targeting the median trough concentrations following 180 mg QD, and 240 mg QD. We investigated the impact of alternative dosing regimens on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and the probability of developing a grade ≥2 rash or grade ≥2 amylase increase. Median PFS and OS increased by 1.6 and 7.8 months, respectively between the currently approved dosing strategy and precision dosing to the median trough concentration of the 240 mg dosing strategy, with only a minor increase in the probability of developing toxicity.

Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA as a response and follow-up marker in cancer therapy.

Response evaluation for cancer treatment consists primarily of clinical and radiological assessments. In addition, a limited number of serum biomarkers that assess treatment response are available for a small subset of malignancies. Through recent technological innovations, new methods for measuring tumor burden and treatment response are becoming available. By utilization of highly sensitive techniques, tumor-specific mutations in circulating DNA can be detected and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be quantified. These so-called liquid biopsies provide both molecular information about the genomic composition of the tumor and opportunities to evaluate tumor response during therapy. Quantification of tumor-specific mutations in plasma correlates well with tumor burden. Moreover, with liquid biopsies, it is also possible to detect mutations causing secondary resistance during treatment. This review focuses on the clinical utility of ctDNA as a response and follow-up marker in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. Relevant studies were retrieved from a literature search using PubMed database. An overview of the available literature is provided and the relevance of ctDNA as a response marker in anti-cancer therapy for clinical practice is discussed. We conclude that the use of plasma-derived ctDNA is a promising tool for treatment decision-making based on predictive testing, detection of resistance mechanisms, and monitoring tumor response. Necessary steps for translation to daily practice and future perspectives are discussed.

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. RESULTS: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). CONCLUSION: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.

CT-guided percutaneous hookwire localization increases the efficacy and safety of VATS for pulmonary nodules.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of pulmonary nodules of unknown origin is challenging, and such nodules are not always suitable for transthoracic needle biopsy. With the advent of video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and CT-guided percutaneous hookwire localization (CT-PHL) we hypothesized that the combination of these two procedures will improve early diagnosis. METHODS: Selection criteria were a nodule not well approachable with fine needle biopsy and the therapeutic consequences of a diagnosis as assessed by the multidisciplinary oncology board. Efficacy and safety of the combination of CT-PHL prior to VATS was studied in terms of, histological diagnosis, complete resection rate, complications, conversion rate to thoracotomy, and duration of procedures. RESULTS: A total of 150 pulmonary nodules were located and resected in 150 patients. The median nodule diameter was 9 mm (range 4-24) and located within 30 mm of the pleural surface (median 7, range 0-29). The resection was complete in 96%, and in 100% a definitive histological diagnosis was obtained. Complications requiring intervention during the CT-procedure occurred in 11 patients (7.3%). Complications of VATS consisted of major complications (2.0%) and minor complications (4.0%). The 30 Day mortality was 1.4% and in hospital mortality 0.7%. Conversion to thoracotomy occurred in 4.7% patients. Median CT-localization time was 25 min (range 5-72), median VATS time was 49 min (range 14-169). CONCLUSIONS: CT-PHL is a very efficient and safe procedure prior to VATS for pulmonary nodules and allows in 96% radical resection with a diagnostic accuracy of 100%.

Osimertinib and palbociclib in an EGFR-mutated NSCLC with primary CDK4 amplification after progression under osimertinib.

Precision cancer medicine has changed the treatment paradigm of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific molecular aberrations. A major challenge is management of the resistance that tumor cells eventually develop against targeted therapies, either through primary or acquired resistance mechanisms. We report a 61 year-old male patient with metastatic NSCLC harboring an EGFR exon 19 deletion, a PIK3CA mutation, and CDK4 amplification. After an initial partial response to osimertinib as mono-therapy (third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), the patient had progression of disease after 4 months of treatment and was referred for combined osimertinib and palbociclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) treatment. Though complicated by transient pneumonitis, the patient has an ongoing partial response for > 10 months and has experienced clinical improvement on this treatment regimen. As amplification of CDK4 occurs in ~ 10% of treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the successful treatment of our patient with osimertinib and palbociclib may be highly relevant for future patients with NSCLC.

An Evidence-Based Rationale for Dose De-escalation of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of different forms of cancer. The subcutaneous formulation of atezolizumab has recently received approval. However, treatment with atezolizumab continues to be expensive, and the number of patients needing treatment with this drug continues to increase. OBJECTIVE: We propose two alternative dosing regimens for subcutaneous atezolizumab to reduce drug expenses while ensuring effective exposure; one may be directly implemented in the clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed two alternative dose interval prolongation strategies based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation. The first dosing regimen was based on patients' weight while maintaining equivalent systemic drug exposure by adhering to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for in silico dose adjustments. The second dosing regimen aimed to have a minimum atezolizumab concentration above the 6 µg/mL threshold, associated with 95% intratumoral PD-L1 receptor saturation for at least 95% of all patients. RESULTS: We found that, for the weight-based dosing regimen, the approved 3-week dosing interval could be extended to 5 weeks for patients < 50 kg and 4 weeks for patients weighing 50-65 kg. Besides improving patient convenience, these alternative dosing intervals led to a predicted 7% and 12% cost reduction for either the USA or European population. For the second dosing regimen, we predicted that a 6-week dosing interval would result in 95% of the patients above the 6 µg/mL threshold while reducing costs by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and evaluated two alternative dosing regimens that resulted in a cost reduction. Our weight-based dosing regimen can be directly implemented and complies with FDA guidelines for alternative dosing regimens of PD-L1 inhibitors. For the more progressive alternative dosing regimen aimed at the intratumoral PD-L1 receptor threshold, further evidence on efficacy and safety is needed before implementation.

First-in-human study of naporafenib (LXH254) with or without spartalizumab in adult patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK signaling pathway alterations.

BACKGROUND: We investigated naporafenib (LXH254), a pan-RAF kinase inhibitor, with or without spartalizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK pathway alterations. METHODS: This first-in-human phase 1 study had two dose-escalation arms: single-agent naporafenib (starting at 100 mg once-daily [QD]) and naporafenib (starting at the recommended dose/regimen)/spartalizumab (400 mg every 4 weeks). The naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion part enrolled patients with KRAS-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and NRAS-mutated melanoma. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated doses (MTD)/recommended doses for expansion (RDE) and evaluate tolerability and safety. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included in the naporafenib dose-escalation (n = 87), naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-escalation (n = 12) and naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion (n = 43) arms. The MTD/RDE of naporafenib was 600 mg twice-daily (BID). In naporafenib escalation, five patients experienced 7 dose-limiting toxicities: decreased platelet count (1200 mg QD); neuralgia, maculopapular rash, pruritus (600 mg BID); increased blood bilirubin, hyponatremia, peripheral sensory neuropathy (800 mg BID). No DLTs occurred in the naporafenib/spartalizumab arm: the RDE was established at 400 mg BID. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash and dermatitis acneiform (each 24.1%; naporafenib), nausea and pruritus (each 33.3%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; escalation) and rash (39.5%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; expansion). Naporafenib reduced DUSP6 expression in tumors. Two partial responses (PRs) occurred in naporafenib escalation, and 1 complete response and 3 PRs in the naporafenib/spartalizumab NRAS-mutated melanoma and KRAS-mutated NSCLC arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Naporafenib, with or without spartalizumab, showed an acceptable safety profile, pharmacodynamic activity and limited antitumor activity. Additional naporafenib combination therapies are currently under investigation.

Baseline Blood CD8+ T Cell Activation Potency Discriminates Responders from Non-Responders to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Combined with Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating immune cells have been correlated with prognosis for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment of various cancers. However, no robust biomarker has been described to predict treatment response yet. We hypothesized that the activation potency of circulating T cells may predict response to ICI treatment. METHODS: An exploratory analysis was conducted to investigate the association between the response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) combined with stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and the potency of circulating T cells to be activated. Blood-derived lymphocytes from 14 patients were stimulated ex vivo with, among others, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) and compared to healthy controls (HCs). Patients were grouped into responders (>median progression free survival (PFS)) and non-responders (

Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

For patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treatment strategies have changed significantly due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. In the last few years, we have seen an explosive growth of newly introduced targeted therapies in oncology and this development is expected to continue in the future. Besides primary targetable aberrations, emerging diagnostic biomarkers also include relevant co-occurring mutations and resistance mechanisms involved in disease progression, that have impact on optimal treatment management. To accommodate testing of pending biomarkers, it is necessary to establish routine large-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) for all patients with advanced stage NSCLC. For cost-effectiveness and accessibility, it is recommended to implement predictive molecular testing using large-panel NGS in a dedicated, centralized expert laboratory within a regional oncology network. The central molecular testing center should host a regional Molecular Tumor Board and function as a hub for interpretation of rare and complex testing results and clinical decision-making.

Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries.

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Overall survival in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer using different tyrosine kinase inhibitors in The Netherlands: a retrospective, nationwide registry study.

Background: Clinical guidelines advise osimertinib as preferred first line treatment for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with deletions in exon 19 (del19) or exon 21 L858R mutation. However, for first-line osimertinib the real world overall survival (OS) in mutation subgroups remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world OS of those patients treated with different generations of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), and to identify predictors of survival. Methods: Using real-world data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) we assessed patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC with del19 or L858R mutation between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, primarily treated with then regularly available TKIs (including osimertinib). Findings: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, 57,592 patients were included in the NCR. Within this cohort we identified 1109 patients, 654 (59%) with del19 and 455 (41%) with L858R mutations, respectively; 230 (21%) patients were diagnosed with baseline brain metastases (BM). Patients were treated with gefitinib (19%, 213/1109), erlotinib (42%, 470/1109), afatinib (15%, 161/1109) or osimertinib (24%, 265/1109). Median OS was superior for del19 versus L858R (28.4 months (95% CI 25.6-30.6) versus 17.7 months (95% CI 16.1-19.5), p < 0.001. In multivariable analysis, no difference in survival was observed between various TKIs in both groups. Only in the subgroup of patients with del19 and baseline BM, a benefit was observed for treatment with osimertinib. Interpretation: In this nationwide real-world cohort, survival of Dutch patients with advanced NSCLC and an EGFR del19 mutation was superior versus those harboring an L858R mutation. Osimertinib performed only better as first-line treatment in patients with del19 and BM. Funding: None.

Amivantamab Compared with Real-World Physician's Choice after Platinum-Based Therapy from a Pan-European Chart Review of Patients with Lung Cancer and Activating EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) at the second line and beyond (2L+) have an unmet need for new treatment. Amivantamab, a bispecific EGFR- and MET-targeted antibody, demonstrated efficacy in this setting in the phase 1b, open-label CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of amivantamab to the choices made by real-world physicians (RWPC) using an external control cohort from the real-world evidence (RWE) chart review study, CATERPILLAR-RWE. Adjustment was conducted to address differences in prognostic variables between cohorts using inverse probability weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustments based on multivariable regression. In total, 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared for 55 lines of therapy from CATERPILLAR-RWE. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the amivantamab and IPW-weighted RWPC cohorts. For amivantamab versus RWPC using IPW adjustment, the response rate ratio for the overall response was 2.14 (p = 0.0181), and the progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 (p < 0.0001), 0.47 (p = 0.0063) and 0.48 (p = 0.0207), respectively. These analyses provide evidence of clinical and statistical benefits across multiple outcomes and adjustment methods, of amivantamab in platinum pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR Exon20ins. These results confirm earlier comparisons versus pooled national registry data.

The additional diagnostic value of virtual bronchoscopy navigation in patients with pulmonary nodules - The NAVIGATOR study.

BACKGROUND: The number of solitary pulmonary nodules to be evaluated is expected to increase and therefore we need to improve diagnostic and therapeutic tools to approach these nodules. To prevent patients from futile invasive procedures and receiving treatment without histological confirmation of cancer, we evaluated the value of virtual bronchoscopy navigation to obtain a diagnosis of the solitary pulmonary nodule in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In the NAVIGATOR single center, prospective, observational cohort study patients underwent a virtual bronchoscopy navigation procedure with or without guide sheet tunnelling to assess a solitary pulmonary nodule. Nodules were considered not accessible if a diagnosis could not be obtained by either by CT-guided transthoracic biopsy or conventional bronchoscopy. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and January 2022 35 patients underwent the virtual bronchoscopy navigation procedure. The overall diagnostic yield was 77% and was dependent on size of the nodule and chosen path, with highest yield in lesions with an airway path. Adverse events were few and manageable. CONCLUSION: Virtual bronchoscopy navigation with or without sheet tunnelling is a new technique with a good diagnostic yield, also in patients in whom previously performed procedures failed to establish a diagnosis and/or alternative procedures are considered not feasible based on expected yield and/or safety. Preventing futile or more invasive procedures like surgery or transthoracic punctures with a higher complication rate is beneficial for patients, and allowed treatment adaptation in two-third of the analyzed patient population.

A comprehensive overview of the heterogeneity of EGFR exon 20 variants in NSCLC and (pre)clinical activity to currently available treatments.

Activating EGFR mutations are commonly observed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). About 4-10 % of all activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are heterogenous in-frame deletion and/or insertion mutations clustering within exon 20 (EGFRex20+). NSCLC patients with EGFRex20+ mutations are treated as a single disease entity, irrespective of the type and location of the mutation. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the literature reporting both in vitro and clinical drug sensitivity across different EGFRex20+ mutations. The activating A763_Y764insFQEA mutation has a better tumor response in comparison with mutations in the near- and far regions directly following the C-helix and should therefore be treated differently. For other EGFRex20+ mutations marked differences in treatment responses have been reported indicating the need for a classification beyond the exon-based classification. A further classification can be achieved using a structure-function modeling approach and experimental data using patient-derived cell lines. The detailed overview of TKI responses for each EGFRex20+ mutation can assist treating physicians to select the most optimal drug for individual NSCLC patients.