Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Modern era systemic therapies: Expanding concepts of cure in early and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Cure of cancer is a sensitive and multidimensional concept that is challenging to define, difficult to assert at the individual patient level, and often surrounded by controversy. The notion of cure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed and continues to evolve with improvements in diagnosis and treatment. Targeted and immune therapies have recently entered the treatment landscape of stage I-III NSCLC. While some initial pivotal trials of such agents failed to improve survival, recently approved epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (in EGFR-mutated NSCLC) and immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown delays in disease recurrence or progression and unprecedented survival gains compared to previous standards of care. Additional data is now emerging supporting the benefit of treatment strategies based on alternation-matched targeting (anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] inhibition in ALK-altered disease) and immune checkpoint inhibition in stage I-III NSCLC. Similar to previous developments in the treatment of early and locally advanced NSCLC, it is expected that statistically significant and clinically meaningful trial-level benefits will translate into real-world benefits, including improvements in cure measures. Parallel advances in molecular testing (e.g., circulating tumor DNA analyses) are also allowing for a deeper and more comprehensive characterization of disease status and treatment response. Given the impact that curative-intent treatments have on survival, it is critical that various stakeholders, including clinicians and patients, are aware of new opportunities to pursue cure in stage I-III NSCLC.

Feasibility of Point-of-Care Genomic Profiling in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer of Unknown Primary.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer of unknown primary remains a challenging clinical entity. Despite receiving empiric chemotherapy, median overall survival is approximately 6-12 months. Site-specific therapy based on molecular characterization has been shown to improve outcomes; however, feasibility outside of clinical trials, especially in community centers, is lacking. This study explores the application of rapid next-generation sequencing in defining cancer of unknown primary and to identify therapeutic biomarkers. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed by identifying pathological samples designated cancer of unknown primary. Next-generation sequencing testing was based on an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. Genomic profiling was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry service, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. RESULTS: Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Among this cohort, 40 were selected based on an initial diagnosis of cancer of unknown primary. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 70 (42-85) and 23 (57%) were female. Genomic data were used to support a site-specific diagnosis in 6 patients (15%). Median turnaround time was 3 business days (IQR: 1-5). Most common alterations identified were KRAS (35%), CDKN2A (15%), TP53 (15%), and ERBB2 (12%). Actionable molecular targeted therapies were identified in 23 (57%) patients, including alterations in BRAF, CDKN2A, ERBB2, FGFR2, IDH1, and KRAS. Immunotherapy-sensitizing mismatch repair deficiency was identified in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: This study supports the adoption of rapid next-generation sequencing among patients with cancer of unknown primary. We also demonstrate the feasibility of integration of genomic profiling with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry in a community practice setting. Diagnostic algorithms incorporating genomic profiling to better define cancer of unknown primary should be considered for future study.

Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Untreated, EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. A phase 3 trial compared first-line osimertinib with other EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial showed longer progression-free survival with osimertinib than with the comparator EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46). Data from the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported. METHODS: In this trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R allele) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or one of two other EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily, with patients receiving these drugs combined in a single comparator group). Overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 38.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5 to 41.8) in the osimertinib group and 31.8 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 36.0) in the comparator group (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95.05% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P = 0.046). At 3 years, 79 of 279 patients (28%) in the osimertinib group and 26 of 277 (9%) in the comparator group were continuing to receive a trial regimen; the median exposure was 20.7 months and 11.5 months, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 42% of the patients in the osimertinib group and in 47% of those in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation, those who received osimertinib had longer overall survival than those who received a comparator EGFR-TKI. The safety profile for osimertinib was similar to that of the comparator EGFR-TKIs, despite a longer duration of exposure in the osimertinib group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125.).

Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

A real-world study of second or later-line osimertinib in patients with EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC: the final ASTRIS data.

Aim: Report the final analysis from ASTRIS, the largest real-world study of second-/later-line osimertinib in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC and prior EGFR-TKI treatment, received once-daily osimertinib 80 mg. Primary end point: overall survival (OS); secondary end points: progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and response rate. Safety was also recorded. Results: In 3014 patients, median OS: 22.8 months (21.6-23.8), median PFS: 11.1 months (11.0-12.0), median TTD: 13.5 months (12.6-13.9), and response rate: 57.3% (55.5-59.2). All end points reported with 95% CIs. Numerically longer median OS was observed in patients with baseline WHO performance status <2 versus 2 (24.0 vs 11.1 months) and those without versus with brain/leptomeningeal metastases (25.4 vs 18.0 months). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion: Second-/later-line osimertinib demonstrated real-world clinical benefit and safety in advanced/metastatic EGFR T790M NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02474355 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Osimertinib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called EGFR on cancer cells, reducing their growth and spread. ASTRIS is the largest real-world study that evaluated the outcomes with osimertinib treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the EGFR T790M mutation, who had received previous treatment for their cancer. There were 3014 patients included in this study. The main aim of this study was to measure the time at which half of the patients were still alive after starting osimertinib treatment, this was 22.8 months. The study also measured the time at which half of the patients had experienced worsening (progression) of their cancer (11.1 months) and the time when half of the patients had stopped receiving osimertinib treatment (13.5 months). None of the patients experienced any unexpected side effects of the treatment. These data are consistent with those observed in comparable clinical trials with osimertinib, supporting the use of osimertinib treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and the EGFR T790M mutation after their initial cancer treatment has stopped working.

Therapeutic Potential of Afatinib in NRG1 Fusion-Driven Solid Tumors: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) fusions, which activate ErbB signaling, are rare oncogenic drivers in multiple tumor types. Afatinib is a pan-ErbB family inhibitor that may be an effective treatment for NRG1 fusion-driven tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This report summarizes pertinent details, including best tumor response to treatment, for six patients with metastatic NRG1 fusion-positive tumors treated with afatinib. RESULTS: The six cases include four female and two male patients who ranged in age from 34 to 69 years. Five of the cases are patients with lung cancer, including two patients with invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and three patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma. The sixth case is a patient with colorectal cancer. NRG1 fusion partners for the patients with lung cancer were either CD74 or SDC4. The patient with colorectal cancer harbored a novel POMK-NRG1 fusion and a KRAS mutation. Two patients received afatinib as first- or second-line therapy, three patients received the drug as third- to fifth-line therapy, and one patient received afatinib as fifteenth-line therapy. Best response with afatinib was stable disease in two patients (duration up to 16 months when combined with local therapies) and partial response (PR) of >18 months in three patients, including one with ongoing PR after 27 months. The remaining patient had a PR of 5 months with afatinib 40 mg/day, then another 6 months after an increase to 50 mg/day. CONCLUSION: This report reviews previously published metastatic NRG1 fusion-positive tumors treated with afatinib and summarizes six previously unpublished cases. The latter include several with a prolonged response to treatment (>18 months), as well as the first report of efficacy in NRG1 fusion-positive colorectal cancer. This adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that afatinib can be effective in patients with NRG1 fusion-positive tumors. KEY POINTS: NRG1 fusions activate ErbB signaling and have been identified as oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumor types. Afatinib is a pan-ErbB family inhibitor authorized for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer that may be effective in NRG1 fusion-driven tumors. This report summarizes six previously unpublished cases of NRG1 fusion-driven cancers treated with afatinib, including five with metastatic lung cancer and one with metastatic colorectal cancer. Several patients showed a prolonged response of >18 months with afatinib treatment. This case series adds to the evidence suggesting a potential role for afatinib in this area of unmet medical need.

Prolonging Survival: The Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 15% of lung cancers, and approximately 70% are diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). Although ES-SCLC is highly responsive to chemotherapy, patients typically progress rapidly, and there is an urgent need for new therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been investigated in SCLC, and this review provides guidance on the use of these agents in ES-SCLC based on phase III evidence. METHODS: Published and presented literature on phase III data addressing use of ICIs in ES-SCLC was identified using the key search terms "small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint inhibitors" (OR respective aliases). Directed searches of eligible studies were periodically performed to ensure capture of the most recent data. RESULTS: Six phase III trials were identified, with four assessing the benefits of ICIs plus chemotherapy first-line, one evaluating ICIs as first-line therapy maintenance, and one assessing ICI monotherapy after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. The addition of ipilimumab or tremelimumab to first-line treatment or as first-line maintenance did not improve survival. Two out of three studies combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated significant long-lasting survival benefits and improved quality of life with no unexpected safety concerns. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line maintenance or in later lines of therapy did not improve survival. Biomarker research is ongoing as well as research into the role of ICIs in combination with radiation therapy in limited-stage SCLC. CONCLUSION: The addition of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for ES-SCLC prolongs survival and improves quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Platinum-based chemotherapy has been standard of care for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) for more than a decade. Six recent phase III trials investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have clarified the role of these agents in this setting. Although ICIs were assessed first-line, as first-line maintenance, and in later lines of therapy, the additions of atezolizumab or durvalumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were the only interventions that significantly improved overall survival and increased quality of life. These combinations should therefore be considered standard therapy for first-line ES-SCLC. Biomarker research and investigations into the role of ICIs for limited-stage disease are ongoing.

ASTRIS: a global real-world study of osimertinib in >3000 patients with EGFR T790M positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report real-world effectiveness and safety data. Patients & methods: EGFR T790M positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer adults, who received ≥1 prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, received osimertinib 80 mg daily. Primary effectiveness outcome: overall survival. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: investigator-assessed clinical response, progression-free survival, time-to-treatment discontinuation. Results: At data cutoff, 3015 patients had enrolled: 57.1% had investigator-assessed response (95% CI: 55.2-58.9). Median progression-free survival: 11.1 months (95% CI: 11.0-12.0) and median time-to-treatment discontinuation: 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-13.9). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis-like events reported in 28 (1%) patients. Conclusion: Osimertinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness similar to efficacy observed in the clinical trial program with no new safety signals.

Multi-disciplinary proactive follow-up algorithm for patients with advanced NSCLC receiving afatinib.

PURPOSE: Afatinib is a standard first-line therapy for advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC. We implemented a pharmacist-led proactive follow-up algorithm to identify and manage early afatinib-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients treated with afatinib after implementation of the algorithm at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada) from April 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016. Our in-house algorithm involved consultations in person and proactive pharmacist-led callbacks on days 5, 10, and 17. All AEs were graded and documented in real time and management based on toxicity grade was standardized. This study evaluated the impact of our algorithm on real-world AEs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Thirty-three patients were identified and reviewed. Median follow-up was 248 days. All patients experienced at least one drug-related AE; 18.2% were grade 3/4. The most common AEs were diarrhea 87.9%, rash 81.8%, stomatitis 57.6%, and paronychia 45.5%. Median dose of afatinib was 40 mg daily; 51.5% of patients had ≥ 1 dose reduction and 6.3% discontinued afatinib due to AEs. Proactive calls by the pharmacist identified 36.5% of all drug-related AEs, 33.3% of grade 3/4 AEs, 58.1% of first drug-related AEs and identified two patients that were non-compliant. Only 3.2% of AEs were identified by an emergency room/urgent clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: This proactive multi-disciplinary AE management algorithm resulted in a low rate of urgent assessments and discontinuation due to toxicity while maintaining afatinib at ideal dose, thus providing a useful tool for centers prescribing afatinib.

The Perceived Value of Liquid Biopsy: Results From a Canadian Validation Study of Circulating Tumor DNA T790M Testing-Patient's Willingness-to-Pay: A Brief Report.

Introduction: Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance. Methods: Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. Results: A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars. Conclusions: In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy.

Biomarker-directed targeted therapy plus durvalumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 2 umbrella trial.

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Cost Savings of Expedited Care with Upfront Next-Generation Sequencing Testing versus Single-Gene Testing among Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Current Canadian Practices.

This study assessed the total costs of testing, including the estimated costs of delaying care, associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Canadian public payer perspective. A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations using tissue biopsy NGS or single-gene strategies following Canadian guideline recommendations. Inputs included prevalence of mNSCLC, the proportion that tested positive for each genomic alteration, rebiopsy rates, time to test results, testing/medical costs, and costs of delaying care based on literature, public data, and expert opinion. Among 1,000,000 hypothetical publicly insured adult Canadians (382 with mNSCLC), the proportion of patients that tested positive for a genomic alteration with an approved targeted therapy was 38.0% for NGS and 26.1% for single-gene strategies. The estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation was 5.1 weeks for NGS and 9.2 weeks for single-gene strategies. Based on literature, each week of delayed care cost CAD 406, translating to total mean per-patient costs of CAD 3480 for NGS and CAD 5632 for single-gene strategies. NGS testing with mNSCLC in current Canadian practice resulted in more patients with an identified mutation, shorter time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation, and lower total testing costs compared to single-gene strategies.

Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Osimertinib in Patients with Resected EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC. METHODS: A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery®). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence. RESULTS: In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of KRAS G12C-Mutated NSCLC.

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/- chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity.

Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Inhibitors and MET Targeted Therapies in NSCLC With MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations: Efficacy and Toxicity as Sequential Therapies.

Introduction: NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping mutation (METex14) is associated with poor outcomes. Integration of novel targeted therapies is challenging because of barriers in testing and drug access. We, therefore, sought to characterize the treatment patterns, outcomes, and emerging issues of treatment sequencing in patients with METex14-mutant NSCLC. Methods: We reviewed all NSCLC cases with METex14 alterations between 2014 and 2020 across four Canadian cancer centers. Demographics, disease characteristics, systemic therapy, overall response rates (ORRs), survival, and toxicity were summarized. Results: Among 64 patients with METex14-mutant NSCLC, the median overall survival was 23.1 months: 127.0 months in stage 1, 27.3 months in resected stage 2 and 3, and 16.6 months in unresectable stage 3 or 4 disease, respectively. In patients with advanced disease, 22% were too unwell for systemic treatment. MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were administered to 28 patients with an ORR of 33%, median progression-free survival of 2.7 months, and 3.8 months for selective TKIs. Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors were given to 25 patients-the ORR was 44% and progression-free survival was 10.6 months. No responses were seen with subsequent MET TKIs after initial TKI treatment. Grade 3 or higher toxicities occurred in 64% of patients who received MET TKI after PD-1 inhibitors versus 8% in those who did not receive PD-1 inhibitors. Conclusions: Many patients with advanced METex14 NSCLC were too unwell to receive treatment. PD-1 inhibitors seem effective as an initial treatment, although greater toxicity was seen with subsequent MET TKIs. Thus, timely testing for METex14 skipping and initial therapy are imperative to improving patient survival.

Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-604: Pembrolizumab or Placebo Added to Etoposide and Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC.

Introduction: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-604 study (NCT03066778), pembrolizumab plus etoposide and platinum chemotherapy (EP) significantly (p = 0.0023) improved progression-free survival versus placebo plus EP in previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from KEYNOTE-604. Methods: Patients with stage IV SCLC were randomized 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for 35 cycles plus four cycles of EP. Secondary end points included mean change from baseline to week 18 in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scale and time to deterioration in the composite outcome of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13. Two-sided, nominal p values are reported. Results: A total of 439 patients completed at least one QLQ-C30 and QLQ-Lung Cancer Module 13 assessment (pembrolizumab + EP, n = 221; placebo + EP, n = 218). GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 18: least squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) changes were 8.7 (5.3-12.1) for pembrolizumab plus EP and 4.2 (0.9-7.5) for placebo plus EP. Between-group differences in least squares mean scores were improved for pembrolizumab plus EP (4.4 [95% CI: 0.2-8.7], p = 0.040]). Median time to deterioration for the composite end point was not reached and 8.7 (95% CI: 5.9-not reached) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.56-1.14], p = 0.208). Conclusions: First-line pembrolizumab plus EP therapy maintained HRQoL in patients with ES-SCLC and may be associated with greater improvement than placebo plus EP. Together with the efficacy and safety findings in KEYNOTE-604, HRQoL data support the benefit of pembrolizumab in ES-SCLC.

Intracranial Metastatic Disease: Present Challenges, Future Opportunities.

Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a prevalent complication of cancer that significantly limits patient survival and quality of life. Over the past half-century, our understanding of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of IMD has improved and enabled the development of surveillance and treatment algorithms based on prognostic factors and tumor biomolecular characteristics. In addition to advances in surgical resection and radiation therapy, the treatment of IMD has evolved to include monoclonal antibodies and small molecule antagonists of tumor-promoting proteins or endogenous immune checkpoint inhibitors. Moreover, improvements in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging as well as the development of new serological assays to detect brain metastases promise to revolutionize IMD diagnosis. In this review, we will explore current treatment principles in patients with IMD, including the emerging role of targeted and immunotherapy in select primary cancers, and discuss potential areas for further investigation.