Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Amivantamab for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Amivantamab-vmjw (amivantamab) is a bispecific EGFR/MET antibody approved for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, after prior therapy. Nevertheless, the benefits and safety of amivantamab in other EGFR-mutant lung cancer, with or without osimertinib, and with concurrent radiation therapy, are less known. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Lung Cancer GEMINI, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Stanford Cancer Center's database for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with amivantamab, not on a clinical trial. The data analyzed included initial response, duration of treatment, and concomitant radiation safety in overall population and prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received amivantamab. Median age was 65 (31-81) years old; 72.1% were female; and 77% were patients with never smoking history. Median number of prior lines of therapies was four. On the basis of tumor's EGFR mutation, 39 patients were in the classical mutation cohort, 15 patients in the exon 20 cohort, and seven patients in the atypical cohort. There were 37 patients (58.7%) who received amivantamab concomitantly with osimertinib and 25 patients (39.1%) who received concomitant radiation. Furthermore, 54 patients were assessable for response in the overall population; 19 patients (45.2%) had clinical response and disease control rate (DCR) was 64.3%. In the classical mutation cohort of the 33 assessable patients, 12 (36.4%) had clinical response and DCR was 48.5%. In the atypical mutation cohort, six of the seven patients (85.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 100%. Of the 13 assessable patients in the exon 20 cohort, five patients (35.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 64.3%. Adverse events reported with amivantamab use were similar as previously described in product labeling. No additional toxicities were noted when amivantamab was given with radiation with or without osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world multicenter analysis revealed that amivantamab is a potentially effective treatment option for patients with EGFR mutations outside of exon 20 insertion mutations. The combination of osimertinib with amivantamab is safe and feasible. Radiation therapy also seems safe when administered sequentially or concurrently with amivantamab.

A Mindfulness-Based Intervention as a Supportive Care Strategy for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Spouses: Results of a Three-Arm Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although mindfulness-based interventions have been widely examined in patients with nonmetastatic cancer, the feasibility and efficacy of these types of programs are largely unknown for those with advanced disease. We pilot-tested a couple-based meditation (CBM) relative to a supportive-expressive (SE) and a usual care (UC) arm targeting psychospiritual distress in patients with metastatic lung cancer and their spousal caregivers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patient-caregiver dyads completed baseline self-report measures and were then randomized to one of the three arms. Couples in the CBM and SE groups attended four 60-minute sessions that were delivered via videoconference. All dyads were reassessed 1 and 3 months later. RESULTS: A priori feasibility benchmarks were met. Although attendance was high in both groups, dyads in the CBM group indicated greater benefit of the sessions than those in the SE group (patients, CBM mean = 2.63, SE mean = 2.20, p = .003; spouses, CBM mean = 2.71, SE mean = 2.00, p = .005). Compared with the UC group, patients in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p = .05; d = 0.53) and marginally reduced cancer-related stress (p = .07; d = 0.68). Medium effect sizes in favor of the CBM compared with the SE group for depressive symptoms (d = 0.59) and cancer-related stress (d = 0.54) were found. Spouses in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p < .01; d = 0.74) compared with those in the UC group. CONCLUSION: It seems feasible and possibly efficacious to deliver dyadic interventions via videoconference to couples coping with metastatic lung cancer. Mindfulness-based interventions may be of value to managing psychological symptoms in the palliative care setting. Clinical trial identification number. NCT02596490 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current randomized controlled trial has established that a mindfulness approach to the management of patients' and spouses' psychospiritual concerns is acceptable and subjectively deemed more beneficial than a supportive-expressive treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We also revealed that videoconference delivery, here FaceTime, is an acceptable approach even for geriatric patients with metastatic NSCLC and that patients and their spousal caregivers prefer a dyadic delivery of this type of supportive care strategy. Lastly, this trial has laid the foundation for the role of mindfulness-based interventions in the palliative care setting supporting patients with advanced NSCLC and their spousal caregivers.

Pilot Testing of a Brief Couple-Based Mind-Body Intervention for Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Partners.

CONTEXT: Given the generally incurable nature of metastatic lung cancer, patients and their spouses/partners are at risk for psychological and spiritual distress. To address this concern, we developed a couple-based mind-body (CBMB) intervention. OBJECTIVES: This formative research aimed at examining the intervention's acceptability and initial efficacy in patients with metastatic lung cancer undergoing treatment and their spouses. METHODS: Intervention content evaluation sessions and an ensuing single-arm trial were conducted. To evaluate intervention content, participants performed intervention exercises and then participated in semistructured interviews and completed written evaluations. In the single-arm trial, four intervention sessions were delivered over two weeks, focusing on cultivating mindfulness, interpersonal connection, gratitude, and purpose. Newly recruited couples completed measures of depressive symptoms, cancer distress, spiritual well-being, and sleep disturbances before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Content evaluations by seven dyads of patients and their partners revealed high acceptability ratings for the CBMB intervention (e.g., all participants would recommend the intervention). Consent and adherence rates (54% and 67%, respectively) were acceptable in the single-arm trial. All patients (n = 7 dyads; 67% male; mean age, 55 years) and partners (33% male; mean age, 59 years) rated the intervention as useful. Paired t-test analyses revealed large effect sizes for reduced sleep disturbances (d = 1.83) and medium effect sizes for cancer-specific distress (d = 0.61) for patients and large effect sizes for depressive symptoms (d = 0.90) for partners. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, the CBMB intervention appears to be acceptable and subjectively useful. In addition, we observed preliminary evidence of quality of life gains in both patients and their partners.

Clinical outcomes and biomarker profiles of elderly pretreated NSCLC patients from the BATTLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating elderly non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the salvage setting is challenging because of concerns of intolerance to therapy. Here we report outcomes (survival and toxicity) of elderly patients on the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-five chemorefractory NSCLC patients received tumor molecular analysis, and were randomized to erlotinib, erlotinib-bexarotene, vandetanib, or sorafenib. Retrospective subgroup analyses were conducted comparing outcomes among age groups (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years; < 70 versus ≥ 70 years; < 75 versus ≥ 75 years), treatments, and sex. RESULTS: Median age was 62 years (range, 26-84); 38% were aged 65 years or more. No significant differences among age groups were seen in rates of biopsy-related pneumothorax, treatment-related death, compliance, grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities, response rate, nor overall survival. However, older women aged 65 years or more had more grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities (p = 0.05). Elderly men aged 65 years or more (p = 0.008) had a higher disease-control rate at 8 weeks and a better progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0068). Elderly women aged 70 years or more had a trend toward higher 8-week disease-control rate (p = 0.06). Older men aged 65 years or more treated with vandetanib had a better median PFS (p = 0.03) whereas PFS of older women aged 70 years or more was worse (p = 0.03) compared with younger patients. Elderly men aged 70 years or more treated with sorafenib had a higher overall survival compared with younger men (p = 0.04). Tumor tissue biomarkers show distinct differences by sex and age. CONCLUSION: Fit elderly NSCLC patients should be considered for salvage targeted therapy. In this subset of patients, older men seem to have significant clinical benefit from certain agents. Tumor biomarker analysis demonstrates sex and age variations, and is hypothesis-generating.

Phase II randomized, placebo-controlled trial of green tea extract in patients with high-risk oral premalignant lesions.

Epidemiologic and preclinical data support the oral cancer prevention potential of green tea extract (GTE). We randomly assigned patients with high-risk oral premalignant lesions (OPL) to receive GTE at 500, 750, or 1,000 mg/m(2) or placebo thrice daily for 12 weeks, evaluating biomarkers in baseline and 12-week biopsies. The OPL clinical response rate was higher in all GTE arms (n = 28; 50%) versus placebo (n = 11; 18.2%; P = 0.09) but did not reach statistical significance. However, the two higher-dose GTE arms [58.8% (750 and 1,000 mg/m(2)), 36.4% (500 mg/m(2)), and 18.2% (placebo); P = 0.03] had higher responses, suggesting a dose-response effect. GTE treatment also improved histology (21.4% versus 9.1%; P = 0.65), although not statistically significant. GTE was well tolerated, although higher doses increased insomnia/nervousness but produced no grade 4 toxicity. Higher mean baseline stromal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) correlated with a clinical (P = 0.04) but not histologic response. Baseline scores of other biomarkers (epithelial VEGF, p53, Ki-67, cyclin D1, and p16 promoter methylation) were not associated with a response or survival. Baseline p16 promoter methylation (n = 5) was associated with a shorter cancer-free survival. Stromal VEGF and cyclin D1 expression were downregulated in clinically responsive GTE patients and upregulated in nonresponsive patients at 12 weeks (versus at baseline). An extended (median, 27.5 months) follow-up showed a median time to oral cancer of 46.4 months. GTE may suppress OPLs, in part through reducing angiogenic stimulus (stromal VEGF). Higher doses of GTE may improve short-term (12-week) OPL outcome. The present results support longer-term clinical testing of GTE for oral cancer prevention.