RESUMO
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 (
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Feminino , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Masculino , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Afatinib/uso terapêutico , Cetuximab/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Receptores ErbB/genética , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Éxons , Mutação , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversosRESUMO
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).
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pirimidinas , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Pirazóis , Piridinas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas c-ret/genéticaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Exantema , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Melanoma , Neoplasias , Adulto , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Melanoma/tratamento farmacológico , Melanoma/genética , Melanoma/induzido quimicamente , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas p21(ras) , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversos , Transdução de Sinais , Exantema/induzido quimicamente , Prurido/induzido quimicamente , Prurido/tratamento farmacológico , Dose Máxima TolerávelRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain penetrant, next-generation ALK/ROS1 TKI, with high response rates and durable responses, including the brain. However, a significant drawback is the manifestation of neurocognitive adverse events (NCAEs). Despite being generally low-grade in severity, these NCAEs can be physically and mentally disabling. Extensive neurocognitive testing in this group of patients is lacking; therefore we conducted this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational prospective study was conducted across 3 Dutch university hospitals. Patients with metastatic NSCLC with an ALK- or ROS1-rearrangement and having an indication to start lorlatinib in daily clinical practice were eligible. The primary endpoints were to identify changes in neurocognitive functioning, measured through neurocognitive assessment at intervals of 2 weeks and 2 months after starting lorlatinib, in comparison to baseline. As a secondary endpoint, the correlation between neurocognitive impairment and self-reported neurocognitive dysfunction was examined. RESULTS: Between June 2019 and October 2022, 22 patients were included. Among the various neurocognitive tests administered, only the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised parts b and c demonstrated a significant and clinically relevant decrease in scoring 2 weeks post initiation of lorlatinib (P = .036 and P = .003, respectively). However, these returned to baseline at the 2-month evaluation. The questionnaires did not result in significantly different outcomes over time. CONCLUSION: Lorlatinib treatment did not result in a sustained and significant decline within any of the specified neurocognitive domains.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Lactamas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pirazóis , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/induzido quimicamente , Proteínas Tirosina Quinases/uso terapêutico , Estudos Prospectivos , Quinase do Linfoma Anaplásico/uso terapêutico , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas/uso terapêutico , Aminopiridinas/efeitos adversos , Lactamas Macrocíclicas/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversosRESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Receptores ErbB/genética , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/farmacologia , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/uso terapêutico , Mutação , Éxons/genéticaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carboplatina/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Cisplatino , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , MutaçãoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been used as a biomarker for prognostication and response to treatment. Here, we evaluate ctDNA as a potential biomarker for response to lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608). METHODS: Molecular responses were calculated using mean variant allele frequency (VAF), longitudinal mean change in VAF (dVAF), and ratio to baseline. Efficacy assessments (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate) were paired with individual patient ctDNA and analyzed for association. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, mean VAF at week 4 was decreased in both treatment arms. Considering all detected somatic variants, a reduction in dVAF (≤0) was associated with a longer PFS in the lorlatinib arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for a dVAF less than or equal to 0 versus more than 0 was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-1.12) in the lorlatinib arm. A similar association was not observed for crizotinib (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49-2.03). Comparing molecular responders with nonresponders, patients treated with lorlatinib who had a molecular response had longer PFS (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85); patients treated with crizotinib who had a molecular response had similar PFS as those without a molecular response (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.67-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC, early ctDNA dynamics predicted better outcome with lorlatinib but not with crizotinib. These results suggest that ctDNA may be used to monitor and potentially predict efficacy of lorlatinib treatment.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , DNA Tumoral Circulante , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Crizotinibe , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Quinase do Linfoma Anaplásico/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Lactamas Macrocíclicas/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversos , BiomarcadoresRESUMO
PURPOSE: Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models can be used to estimate the risk of radiation pneumonitis (RP). The aim of this study was to externally validate the most frequently used prediction models for RP, i.e., the QUANTEC and APPELT models, in a large cohort of lung cancer patients treated with IMRT or VMAT. [1-2] METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective cohort study, included lung cancer patients treated between 2013 and 2018. A closed testing procedure was performed to test the need for model updating. To improve model performance, modification or removal of variables was considered. Performance measures included tests for goodness of fit, discrimination, and calibration. RESULTS: In this cohort of 612 patients, the incidence of RP ≥ grade 2 was 14.5%. For the QUANTEC-model, recalibration was recommended which resulted in a revised intercept and adjusted regression coefficient (from 0.126 to 0.224) of the mean lung dose (MLD),. The APPELT-model needed revision including model updating with modification and elimination of variables. After revision, the New RP-model included the following predictors (and regression coefficients): MLD (B = 0.250), age (B = 0.049, and smoking status (B = 0.902). The discrimination of the updated APPELT-model was higher compared to the recalibrated QUANTEC-model (AUC: 0.79 vs. 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that both the QUANTEC- and APPELT-model needed revision. Next to changes of the intercept and regression coefficients, the APPELT model improved further by model updating and performed better than the recalibrated QUANTEC model. This New RP-model is widely applicable containing non-tumour site specific variables, which can easily be collected.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pneumonite por Radiação , Humanos , Pneumonite por Radiação/diagnóstico , Pneumonite por Radiação/epidemiologia , Pneumonite por Radiação/etiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Probabilidade , Quimiorradioterapia/efeitos adversos , Dosagem RadioterapêuticaRESUMO
Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are present in approximately 40% of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib is a substrate of transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2 and metabolized by CYP3A4. We investigated relationships between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) ABCB1 3435C>T, ABCG2 421C>A and 34G>A, and CYP3A4∗22 and CNS treatment efficacy of osimertinib in EGFRm+ NSCLC patients. Methods: Patients who started treatment with osimertinib for EGFRm+ NSCLC between November 2014 and June 2021 were included in this retrospective observational multicentre cohort study. For patients with baseline CNS metastases, the primary endpoint was CNS progression-free survival (CNS-PFS; time from osimertinib start until CNS disease progression or death). For patients with no or unknown baseline CNS metastases, the primary endpoint was CNS disease-free survival (CNS-DFS; time from osimertinib start until occurrence of new CNS metastases). Relationships between SNPs and baseline characteristics with CNS-PFS and CNS-DFS were studied with competing-risks survival analysis. Secondary endpoints were relationships between SNPs and PFS, overall survival, severe toxicity, and osimertinib pharmacokinetics. Findings: From 572 included patients, 201 had baseline CNS metastases. No SNP was associated with CNS-PFS. Genotype ABCG2 34GA/AA and/or ABCB1 3435CC --present in 35% of patients-- was significantly associated with decreased CNS-DFS (hazard ratio 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73; p = 0.009) in the multivariate analysis. This remained significant after applying a Bonferroni correction and internal validation through bootstrapping. ABCG2 421CA/AA was related to more severe toxicity (27.0% versus 16.5%; p = 0.010). Interpretation: ABCG2 34G>A and ABCB1 3435C>T are predictors for developing new CNS metastases during osimertinib treatment, probably because of diminished drug levels in the CNS. ABCG2 421C>A was significantly related with the incidence of severe toxicity. Pre-emptive genotyping for these SNPs could individualize osimertinib therapy. Addition of ABCG2 inhibitors for patients without ABCG2 34G>A should be studied further, to prevent new CNS metastases during osimertinib treatment. Funding: No funding was received for this trial.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses. METHODS: We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development. RESULTS: We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Imunoconjugados , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Anticorpos Monoclonais/farmacologia , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Nivolumabe , Imunoconjugados/farmacologia , Imunoconjugados/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
Adjuvant durvalumab is the standard of care for patients with stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without progression after concurrent chemo-radiation (CCRT). Patients with stage III NSCLC harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangements do not seem to benefit from durvalumab. Data are lacking about patients harbouring other driver genomic alterations (dGA). We performed a multicentre (N = 4, Netherlands and Italy) retrospective study including consecutive patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and treated with CCRT-with or without adjuvant durvalumab-between 2016 and 2022. We enrolled 271 patients; 130 of which received adjuvant durvalumab. Sixty-six patients had dGA (41 KRAS mutations, 4 EGFR common mutations and 21 uncommon dGA). In the entire population, the median PFS was 24.9 months (95% CI 17.5-32.4) and 12.6 months (95% CI 9.0-16.1) with and without durvalumab (p = 0.001). In the dGA group (excluding common EGFR), mPFS was 12.3 months (95% CI 7.8-16.8) with and 7.6 (95% CI 3.4-11.9) without durvalumab (p = 0.038). For patients with KRAS mutations, mPFS was 12.3 months (95% CI 3.6-20.9) with and 7.2 months (95% CI 1.8-12.6) without durvalumab (p = 0.12). Among patients with uncommon dGA, mPFS was 12.9 months (95% CI 8.4-17.4) with and 7.6 months (95% CI 1.4-14) without durvalumab (p = 0.23). We have shown a meaningful survival benefit of adjuvant durvalumab in patients harbouring KRAS mutations and uncommon dGA. This is the largest stage III NSCLC cohort showing the efficacy of durvalumab in patients with uncommon dGA. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Imunológicos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/terapia , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas p21(ras)/genética , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Quimiorradioterapia/métodos , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Genômica , Receptores ErbB/genéticaRESUMO
Background: Alectinib is first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. A shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) was observed when alectinib minimum plasma concentrations during steady state (Cmin,SS) were below 435 ng/mL. This may suggest that patients should have an alectinib Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL for a more favorable outcome. This potential target could be attained by using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), i.e. adjusting the dose based on measured plasma trough concentrations. Hypothetically, this will increase mPFS, but this has not yet been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, the ADAPT ALEC trial is designed, with the primary objective to prolong mPFS in NSCLC patients treated with alectinib by using TDM. Methods: ADAPT ALEC is a multicenter, phase IV RCT, in which patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced ALK positive (+) NSCLC eligible for alectinib in daily care are enrolled. Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) into intervention arm A (TDM) or B (control), stratified by brain metastases and prior ALK treatments. Starting dose in both arms is the approved flat fixed dose of alectinib 600 mg taken twice daily with food. In case of alectinib Cmin,SS < 435 ng/mL, arm A will receive increased doses of alectinib till Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL when considered tolerable. The primary outcome is mPFS, where progressive disease is defined according to RECIST v1.1 or all-cause death and assessed by CT-scans and MRI brain. Secondary endpoints are feasibility and tolerability of TDM, patient and physician adherence, overall response rate, median overall survival, intracranial PFS, quality of life, toxicity, alectinib-M4 concentrations and cost-effectiveness of TDM. Exploratory endpoints are circulating tumor DNA and body composition. Discussion: The ADAPT ALEC will show whether treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC improve when using TDM-guided dosing of alectinib instead of fixed dosing. The results will provide high quality evidence for deciding whether TDM should be implemented as standard of care and this will have important consequences for the prescribing of alectinib. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05525338.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.