Central Nervous System Outcomes of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: A LASER301 Subset Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib, a third-generation mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival compared with gefitinib in the phase 3 LASER301 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248829). Here, we report the efficacy of lazertinib and gefitinib in patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response. RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.

Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Treatment-Naíve Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC: Analysis of the Asian Subpopulation in LASER301.

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib is a third-generation central nervous system-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting mutant EGFR in NSCLC. Lazertinib exhibited improved efficacy versus gefitinib in the LASER301 study; this subset analysis compared lazertinib with gefitinib among Asian patients. METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.

Recommended first-line management of asymptomatic brain metastases from EGFR mutant and ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer varies significantly according to specialty: an international survey of clinical practice.

Background: The role for radiotherapy or surgery in the upfront management of brain metastases (BrM) in epidermal growth factor receptor mutant (EGFRm) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase translocation positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is uncertain because of a lack of prospective evidence supporting tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. Further understanding of practice heterogeneity is necessary to guide collaborative efforts in establishing guideline recommendations. Methods: We conducted an international survey among medical (MO), clinical (CO), and radiation oncologists (RO), as well as neurosurgeons (NS), of treatment recommendations for asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions) EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC patients according to specific clinical scenarios. We grouped and compared treatment recommendations according to specialty. Responses were summarized using counts and percentages and analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 449 surveys were included in the final analysis: 48 CO, 85 MO, 60 NS, and 256 RO. MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend first-line TKI monotherapy, regardless of the number and/or size of asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions). Radiotherapy in addition to TKI as first-line management was preferred by all specialties for patients with ≥4 BrM. NS recommended surgical resection more often than other specialties for BrM measuring >2 cm. Conclusions: Recommendations for the management of BrM from EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC vary significantly according to oncology sub-specialties. Development of multidisciplinary guidelines and further research on establishing optimal treatment strategies is warranted.

Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From LASER301.

PURPOSE: Lazertinib is a potent, CNS-penetrant, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This global, phase III study (LASER301) compared lazertinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion [ex19del]/L858R) locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles. CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.

Dosimetric evaluation of adult and paediatric brain tumours planned using mask-based cobalt-60 fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy compared to linear accelerator-based volumetric modulated arc therapy.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a study to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility of mask-based cobalt-60 fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (mcfSRT) with the Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ device. METHODS: Eleven patients with intracranial tumours were selected for this dosimetry study. These patients, previously treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), were re-planned using mcfSRT. Target volume coverage, conformity/gradient indices, doses to organs at risk and treatment times were compared between the mcfSRT and VMAT plans. Two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences between the two plans. RESULTS: The V95 for PTV was similar between fractionated mcfSRT and VMAT (P = 0.47). The conformity index and gradient indices were 0.9 and 3.3, respectively, for mcfSRT compared to 0.7 and 4.2, respectively, for VMAT (P < 0.001 and 0.004, respectively). The radiation exposure to normal brain was lower for mcfSRT across V10, V25 and V50 compared with VMAT (P = 0.007, <0.001 and <0.001, respectively). The median D0.1cc for optic nerve and chiasm as well as the median D50 to the hippocampi were lower for mcfSRT compared to VMAT. Median beam-on time for mcfSRT was 9.7 min per fraction, compared to 0.9 min for VMAT (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: mcfSRT plans achieve equivalent target volume coverage, improved conformity and gradient indices, and reduced radiation doses to organs at risk as compared with VMAT plans. These results suggest superior dosimetric parameters for mcfSRT plans and can form the basis for future prospective studies.

Recommended first-line management of brain metastases from melanoma: A multicenter survey of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) and surgery (Sx) are effective in treating brain metastases. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown activity against asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM). BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be used to treat BRAF V600 mutation positive (BRAF+) MBM. METHOD: We conducted an international survey among experts from medical oncology (MO), clinical oncology (CO), radiation oncology (RO), and neurosurgery (NS) about treatment recommendations for patients with asymptomatic BRAF+ or BRAF mutation negative (BRAF-) MBM. Eighteen specific clinical scenarios were presented and a total of 267 responses were collected. Answers were grouped and compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In most MBM scenarios, survey respondents, regardless of specialty, favored RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, for patients with BRAF+ MBM, MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend BRAF/MEK inhibitors alone, without the addition of RT, including the majority of MO (51%) for patients with 1-3 MBM, all <2 cm. Likewise, for BRAF- MBM, MO and CO more commonly recommended single or dual agent ICI only and dual agent ICI therapy alone was the most common recommendation from MO or CO for MBM <2 cm. When at least 1 of 3 MBM (BRAF+ or BRAF-) was >2 cm, upfront Sx was recommended by all groups with the exception that MO and RO recommended RT for BRAF- MBM. CONCLUSIONS: In most clinical settings involving asymptomatic MBM, experts recommended RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, recommendations varied significantly according to specialty, with MO and CO more commonly recommending dual systemic therapy alone for up to 9 BRAF- MBM <2 cm.