Cancer biomarkers: Emerging trends and clinical implications for personalized treatment.

The integration of cancer biomarkers into oncology has revolutionized cancer treatment, yielding remarkable advancements in cancer therapeutics and the prognosis of cancer patients. The development of personalized medicine represents a turning point and a new paradigm in cancer management, as biomarkers enable oncologists to tailor treatments based on the unique molecular profile of each patient's tumor. In this review, we discuss the scientific milestones of cancer biomarkers and explore future possibilities to improve the management of patients with solid tumors. This progress is primarily attributed to the biological characterization of cancers, advancements in testing methodologies, elucidation of the immune microenvironment, and the ability to profile circulating tumor fractions. Integrating these insights promises to continually advance the precision oncology field, fostering better patient outcomes.

Amivantamab plus Lazertinib in Previously Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

Post-Progression Analysis of EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Following Osimertinib Therapy in Real-World Settings.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the current standard treatment option in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress on osimertinib. However, outcomes with chemotherapy are dismal, and the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disease is an unmet need in this setting. METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC who were candidates to receive osimertinib in the metastatic setting at our Center from 2015 to 2022 were retrospectively evaluated to identify patients who received standard platinum-based chemotherapy post-osimertinib. Data were collected on treatment outcomes, with a focus on brain metastases and progression patterns. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients received indication for osimertinib in the study period; n = 176 had adequate follow-up data. Overall, n = 117 patients experienced disease progression on osimertinib. The median time to osimertinib progressive disease (PD) was 15 months (95% confidence interval CI 13-18). Of them, 51 patients (45%) had no access to further treatments. Of the remaining patients, n = 8 received experimental treatments, and n = 55 received standard platinum-based chemotherapy and were considered for this study. Median duration of chemotherapy was 3 months (95% CI 2-5); the best responses among 53 evaluable patients were observed as follows: 15% partial response/complete response (PR/CR), 40% stable disease (SD), 45% PD. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3 (95% CI 2-5) and 10 (95% CI 6-15) months, respectively. All patients had baseline and follow-up brain radiologic assessments, and n = 23 had brain metastases at the start of chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 13 months, intracranial PD occurred in 47% patients, being the first site of PD in 59% of cases. The median time for intracranial (IC) PD was 2 months (95% CI 2-7). IC PD occurred as oligometastatic in 29%, whereas in 71% of cases, it was associated with systemic PD. CONCLUSIONS: Access to subsequent treatments and CNS progression are confirmed unmet needs in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Clinical and CNS-specific outcomes in patients receiving standard chemotherapy after the failure of osimertinib are dismal. Novel upfront treatment options with demonstrated prolonged PFS and better CNS outcomes may help address this important issue.

The Evolving Scenario of ES-SCLC Management: From Biology to New Cancer Therapeutics.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma accounting for 15% of lung cancers with dismal survival outcomes. Minimal changes in therapy and prognosis have occurred in SCLC for the past four decades. Recent progress in the treatment of extensive-stage disease (ES-SCLC) has been marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest improvements. Moreover, few second-line-and-beyond treatment options are currently available. The main limitation for the molecular study of SCLC has been the scarcity of samples, because only very early diseases are treated with surgery and biopsies are not performed when the disease progresses. Despite all these difficulties, in recent years we have come to understand that SCLC is not a homogeneous disease. At the molecular level, in addition to the universal loss of retinoblastoma (RB) and TP53 genes, a recent large molecular study has identified other mutations that could serve as targets for therapy development or patient selection. In recent years, there has also been the identification of new genetic subtypes which have shown us how intertumor heterogeneity exists. Moreover, SCLC can also develop intratumoral heterogeneity linked mainly to the concept of cellular plasticity, mostly due to the development of resistance to therapies. The aim of this review is to quickly present the current standard of care of ES-SCLC, to focus on the molecular landscapes and subtypes of SCLC, subsequently present the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation, and finally recap the future directions of ongoing clinical trials for this aggressive disease which still remains a challenge.

Alectinib vs. Lorlatinib in the Front-Line Setting for ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Deep Dive into the Main Differences across ALEX and CROWN Phase 3 Trials.

Various next-generation ALK TKIs are available as first-line options for ALK-positive NSCLC, with alectinib and lorlatinib being commonly preferred. However, no direct comparison between them has been conducted, making it impossible to pick a winner. We performed an analytic, 'non-comparative' assessment of the two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials showing superiority of alectinib (ALEX) and lorlatinib (CROWN) in comparison to crizotinib. Overall, the two studies were very similar in the study design and patient characteristics, with the exception of the selection and evaluation of brain metastases. PFS hazard ratios numerically favored lorlatinib, both according to the investigator and to BICR. Notably, the 3-year PFS rate was numerically higher with lorlatinib (64%) than with alectinib (46.4%). Despite similar response rates and overall intracranial response, the rate of complete intracranial response was higher with lorlatinib, with a cumulative incidence risk of CNS disease progression at 12 months of 9.4% with alectinib and 2.8% with lorlatinib. The peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib were related to lipidic profile alterations, peripheral oedema and cognitive effects, with no impact on cardiovascular risk nor impairment in quality of life versus crizotinib. Furthermore, the rate of permanent treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was numerically higher with alectinib (26%) than with lorlatinib (7%). In conclusion, despite the immature OS data for both drugs, the efficacy of lorlatinib appears higher than alectinib while maintaining a manageable toxicity profile.

Clinical evidence and adverse event management update of patients with RET- rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pralsetinib.

Current non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management relies on genome-driven precision oncology thus shifting treatment paradigm towards biomarker-guided tumor-agnostic approaches. Recently, rearranged during transfection (RET) has been endorsed as tissue-agnostic target with sensitivity to RET inhibition. There are currently two selective RET tyrosine kinase inhibitors, pralsetinib and selpercatinib. The recent introduction of pralsetinib in the treatment algorithm of RET-rearranged tumor along with the mounting clinical evidence of pralsetinib durable activity from both randomized and observational studies holds the potential to disclose new avenues in the management of RET fusion positive NSCLC patients. Our narrative review aims to discuss the available clinical evidence on pralsetinib efficacy, particularly on brain metastases, and tolerability profile. In addition, our work explores the relevance of detecting RET fusions upfront in the disease history of patients with NSCLC.

Co-Occurring Driver Genomic Alterations in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: Actionable driver mutations account for 40-50% of NSCLC cases, and their identification clearly affects treatment choices and outcomes. Conversely, non-actionable mutations are genetic alterations that do not currently have established treatment implications. Among co-occurring alterations, the identification of concurrent actionable genomic alterations is a rare event, potentially impacting prognosis and treatment outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the prevalence and patterns of concurrent driver genomic alterations in a large series of NSCLCs to investigate their association with clinicopathological characteristics, to assess the prognosis of patients whose tumor harbors concurrent alterations in the genes of interest and to explore their potential therapeutic implications. Results: Co-occurring driver alterations were identified in 26 out of 1520 patients with at least one gene alteration (1.7%). Within these cases, the incidence of concurrent actionable gene alterations was 39% (0.7% of the overall cohort). Among compound actionable gene mutations, EGFR was the most frequently involved gene (70%). The most frequent association was EGFR mutations with ROS1 rearrangement. Front-line targeted treatments were the preferred approach in patients with compound actionable mutations, with dismal median PFS observed (6 months). Conclusions: Advances in genomic profiling technologies are facilitating the identification of concurrent mutations. In patients with concurrent actionable gene alterations, integrated molecular and clinical data should be used to guide treatment decisions, always considering rebiopsy at the moment of disease progression.

Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Amivantamab, both in Combination with Lazertinib, in Refractory EGFR-mutated NSCLC: Primary Results from the Phase 3 PALOMA-3 Study.

PURPOSE: Phase 3 studies of intravenous amivantamab demonstrated efficacy across EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A subcutaneous formulation could improve tolerability and reduce administration time while maintaining efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed following osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous or intravenous amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. Co-primary pharmacokinetic noninferiority endpoints were trough concentrations (Ctrough; on cycle-2-day-1 or cycle-4-day-1) and cycle-2 area under the curve (AUCD1-D15). Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a predefined exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: Overall, 418 patients underwent randomization (subcutaneous group, n=206; intravenous group, n=212). Geometric mean ratios of Ctrough for subcutaneous to intravenous amivantamab were 1.15 (90% CI, 1.04-1.26) at cycle-2-day-1 and 1.42 (90% CI, 1.27-1.61) at cycle-4-day-1; the cycle-2 AUCD1-D15 was 1.03 (90% CI, 0.98-1.09). ORR was 30% in the subcutaneous and 33% in the intravenous group; median PFS was 6.1 and 4.3 months, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the subcutaneous versus intravenous group (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92; nominal P=0.02). Fewer patients in the subcutaneous group experienced infusion-related reactions (13% versus 66%) and venous thromboembolism (9% versus 14%) versus the intravenous group. Median administration time for first infusion was reduced to 4.8 minutes (range, 0-18) for subcutaneous amivantamab from 5 hours (range, 0.2-9.9) for intravenous amivantamab. During cycle-1-day-1, 85% and 52% of patients in the subcutaneous and intravenous groups, respectively, considered treatment convenient; end-of-treatment rates were 85% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous amivantamab-lazertinib demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous amivantamab-lazertinib, offering a consistent safety profile with reduced infusion-related reactions, increased convenience, and prolonged survival.