Osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses of central nervous system efficacy and distant progression from the phase III LAURA study.

BACKGROUND: Distant metastases in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are a poor prognostic factor that negatively impact quality of life. The central nervous system (CNS) is a common site of distant progression in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm) NSCLC. Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor recommended for advanced EGFRm NSCLC and as adjuvant treatment for resected EGFRm NSCLC. In LAURA (NCT03521154), osimertinib demonstrated statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in unresectable stage III EGFRm NSCLC without progression during/following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). CNS efficacy and time to death or distant metastases (TTDM) analyses are reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients without progression during/following definitive platinum-based CRT were randomised 2 : 1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg daily) or placebo until progression [by blinded independent central review (BICR)] or discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS by BICR. CNS PFS by neuroradiologist BICR and TTDM by BICR were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 216 patients were randomised (143 osimertinib, 73 placebo). Median CNS PFS by neuroradiologist BICR was not reached [95% confidence interval (CI) not calculable (NC)-NC] with osimertinib versus 14.9 months (95% CI 7.4 months-NC) with placebo; hazard ratio (HR) for CNS PFS: 0.17 (95% CI 0.09-0.32). CNS PFS analysis by investigator assessment was consistent with BICR assessment. The cumulative incidence of CNS progression at 12 months was 9% (95% CI 5% to 14%) with osimertinib and 36% (95% CI 24% to 47%) with placebo. There was clinically meaningful improvement in TTDM with osimertinib versus placebo; HR for TTDM: 0.21 (95% CI 0.11-0.38). The cumulative incidence of distant metastases at 12 months was 11% (95% CI 6% to 17%) with osimertinib and 37% (95% CI 26% to 48%) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in CNS PFS and TTDM versus placebo, supporting osimertinib post-CRT as the standard of care in unresectable stage III EGFRm NSCLC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TATTON: a multi-arm, phase Ib trial of osimertinib combined with selumetinib, savolitinib, or durvalumab in EGFR-mutant lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a potent, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The multi-arm phase Ib TATTON study (NCT02143466) was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of osimertinib in combination with other targeted therapies: selumetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor), savolitinib (MET-TKI), or durvalumab [anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) monoclonal antibody]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer and disease progression on a prior EGFR-TKI were enrolled and allocated to dose-escalating cohorts combining osimertinib 80 mg orally (p.o.) once a day with selumetinib (25-75 mg p.o. twice a day; continuous or intermittent), savolitinib (600-800 mg p.o. once a day), or durvalumab (3-10 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks). RESULTS: At data cut-off (28 February 2018), 77 patients were enrolled and received osimertinib plus selumetinib (n = 36), savolitinib (n = 18), or durvalumab (n = 23). Most common adverse events (any grade), occurring in ≥20% of patients across dose groups, were: selumetinib arm-diarrhea (75%), rash (58%), nausea (47%); savolitinib arm-nausea (67%), rash (56%), vomiting (50%); durvalumab arm-rash (48%), vomiting (43%), diarrhea (39%). Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the selumetinib 25 mg (n = 1), 50 mg (n = 1), and 75 mg (n = 4) continuous-dose groups, savolitinib 600 mg (n = 1) and 800 mg dose groups (n = 2), and durvalumab 10 mg/kg (n = 1) dose group. The objective response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval 26% to 59%), 44% (22% to 69%), and 43% (23% to 66%) in the selumetinib, savolitinib, and durvalumab arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of combining osimertinib 80 mg with selumetinib or savolitinib at identified tolerable, active doses. A combination of osimertinib with durvalumab was not feasible due to increased reporting of interstitial lung disease. Osimertinib-based combination therapies represent a compelling approach now being further investigated. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02143466.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with locally-advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of early and locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2017, and covered the diagnosis, staging, management and treatment of both early stage I and II disease and locally-advanced stage III disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018, it was decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special face-to-face guidelines meeting in 2019 in Seoul. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2017 guidelines to take into account potential differences related to ethnicity, cancer biology and standard practices associated with the treatment of locally-advanced, unresectable NSCLC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by those experts in the treatment of patients with lung cancer who represented the oncology societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and it was independent of both local current treatment practices and the treatment availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a CSCO-ESMO initiative endorsed by JSMO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Overview of current systemic management of EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Front-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) therapy is the standard of care for lung cancer patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation). Several phase III studies have demonstrated the superiority of gefitinib, erlotinib (first generation of TKIs) or afatinib (second generation) to chemotherapy in progression-free survival and response rates. Drug-related toxicities, such as diarrhoea, acneiform skin rash, mucositis, and paronychia, are frequently encountered in patients who receive EGFR TKIs. Other rare side-effects, such as hepatic impairment and interstitial lung disease, should be identified early and managed carefully. Patients with uncommon EGFR mutations, such as G719X, S768I, and L861Q, may require special selection of EGFR TKIs. The combination of erlotinib plus bevacizumab has been accepted in certain parts of the world as an alternative front-line treatment. This review article summarizes the studies leading to the establishment of EGFR TKIs in EGFR-mutant lung cancer patients. The side-effect profiles of the current EGFR TKIs in these large trials are listed, and the management of uncommon EGFR mutations is discussed. Finally, the potential role of combination front-line treatment is discussed.

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

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

A randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of eribulin to treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin is a microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mechanism of action. This phase 3 study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) in patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving eribulin to treatment of physician's choice (TPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including platinum-based doublet and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or TPC (gemcitabine, pemetrexed, vinorelbine, docetaxel). The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty patients were randomized to either eribulin (n = 270) or TPC (n = 270). Median OS for eribulin and TPC was the same: 9.5 months [hazard ratio (HR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.41; P = 0.13]. Progression-free survival for eribulin and TPC was 3.0 and 2.8 months, respectively (HR: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.90-1.32; P = 0.39). The objective response rate was 12% for eribulin and 15% for TPC. Clinical benefit rate (eribulin, 57%; TPC, 55%) and disease control rate (eribulin, 63%; TPC, 58%) were similar between treatment arms. The most common adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 57% of eribulin patients and 49% of TPC patients at all grades. Other non-hematologic side-effects were manageable and similar in both groups except for peripheral sensory neuropathy (all grades; eribulin, 16%; TPC, 9%). CONCLUSION: This phase 3 study did not demonstrate superiority of eribulin over TPC with regard to overall survival. However, eribulin does show activity in the third-line setting for NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: www.ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01454934.