A Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Phase II Study of Osimertinib With and Without Ramucirumab in Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Naïve EGFR-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (RAMOSE trial).

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies demonstrated that dual inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways delay the emergence of resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and in trials with first-generation EGFR TKIs, the combination of EGFR VEGF pathway inhibitors prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: The RAMOSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03909334, HCRN LUN-18-335) is a randomized, open-label multicenter phase II study comparing osimertinib with ramucirumab (arm A) to osimertinib (arm B) for initial treatment of metastatic EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with 2:1 random assignment. The primary end point is PFS for evaluable patients; secondary end points include objective response rates (ORRs), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival, and safety. The stratification criteria were EGFR mutation type and the presence of CNS metastasis. RESULTS: At data cutoff on August 29, 2023, 160 patients consented, 147 patients received treatment, and 139 patients were evaluable with at least one scan. In this preplanned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 16.6 months. Among the evaluable patients, 57 PFS events occurred. The median PFS was 24.8 (A) versus 15.6 (B) months (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.93]; log-rank P = .023), 12-month PFS rate was 76.7% (A) versus 61.9% (B; P = .026). No significant difference was observed in the ORRs and DCRs between arms. Any-grade (G) adverse events (AEs) occurred in 100% (A) and 98% (B) of patients, with no G5 treatment-related AE (TRAE), one G4 TRAE (hyponatremia, A), and 53% (A) versus 41% (B) G3 TRAEs. AE-related discontinuation occurred in 13 patients (9.7% in A and 8.7% in B). The safety profile was in line with known safety of each drug. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab plus osimertinib significantly prolonged PFS compared with osimertinib alone in patients with TKI-naïve EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The combination is safe and well tolerated.

Pembrolizumab With or Without Maintenance Olaparib for Metastatic Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer That Responded to First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors can upregulate PD-L1 expression and promote immune-mediated responses, and may improve efficacy of first-line anti‒PD-1‒based therapies in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT03976362), adults with previously untreated stage IV squamous NSCLC received 4 cycles of induction therapy (pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel). Patients with disease control were randomized to 31 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus olaparib 300 mg orally twice-daily or placebo. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS was tested at interim analysis 2 (IA2; the final PFS analysis); OS was tested at final analysis. RESULTS: 851 patients received induction treatment; 296 were randomized to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 295 to pembrolizumab plus placebo. At IA2, with median follow-up of 27.1 months, median (95% CI) PFS was 8.3 (6.7‒9.7) in the pembrolizumab plus olaparib group and 5.4 (4.1‒5.6) months in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63‒0.93]; P=0.0040 [not significant at a 1-sided at superiority boundary of P=0.003). At final analysis, with median follow-up of 33.4 months, median (95% CI) OS was 19.1 (15.9‒22.2) and 18.6 (16.0‒21.6) months, respectively (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.83‒1.24]; P=0.5481). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 76.5% and 65.1% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adding olaparib to pembrolizumab as maintenance therapy for metastatic squamous NSCLC did not significantly improve PFS versus pembrolizumab plus placebo, neither PFS nor OS met the prespecified statistical significance boundary. No new safety signals were identified.

Consolidation ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Versus Durvalumab or Observation After Chemoradiation in Unresectable Stage III ALK-Positive NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC typically have poor response to immunotherapy; the benefit of consolidation durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III ALK-positive NSCLC remains unclear. Herein, we compare the efficacy and safety of consolidation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus durvalumab or observation after concurrent chemoradiation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using a multicenter study of 17 institutions globally. Patients with unresectable stage III ALK-positive NSCLC treated between 2015 and 2022 were included. Patients received ALK TKI, durvalumab, or observation after concurrent chemoradiation. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were classified by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Outcomes were assessed by multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were included, of whom 39 (58%) were female. Median age was 57 (interquartile range: 49-67) years. Furthermore, 15 received consolidation ALK TKI, 30 received durvalumab, and 22 underwent observation. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three groups other than differences in race. After adjusting for stage, age, and nodal status, median rwPFS was significantly longer for ALK TKI (rwPFS not reached, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.7- not reached) versus durvalumab (11.3 mo, 95% CI: 8.9-18.5, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.026-0.5, p-adjusted [p-adj] = 0.006) or observation (7.2 mo, 95% CI: 3.4-10.6, HR = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.009-0.2, p-adj < 0.0001). Durvalumab significantly improved median rwPFS compared with observation (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.71, p-adj = 0.002). Median OS in the ALK TKI and durvalumab cohorts was significantly improved compared with patients on observation (ALK TKI-observation: p = 0.04; durvalumab-observation: p = 0.03). TrAE of any grade occurred in eight (53%) and 11 (37%) patients treated with ALK TKI and durvalumab, respectively. Grade greater than or equal to three trAEs occurred in 27% (n = 4) of patients treated with ALK TKI and 6.7% of patients treated with durvalumab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC experience significantly improved rwPFS when treated with consolidation ALK TKI therapy, surpassing outcomes found with either durvalumab or observation. Although both ALK TKI therapy and durvalumab offer an extension in OS compared with observation alone, it seems that ALK TKI therapy is the superior choice, underscoring its pivotal role in enhancing patient survival.

Lung-MAP Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancers (SWOG S1400).

INTRODUCTION: Squamous cell cancer (SqCC) is a lung cancer subtype with few targeted therapy options. Molecular characterization, that is, by next-generation sequencing (NGS), is needed to identify potential targets. Lung Cancer Master Protocol Southwest Oncology Group S1400 enrolled patients with previously treated stage IV or recurrent SqCC to assess NGS biomarkers for therapeutic sub-studies. METHODS: Tumors underwent NGS using Foundation Medicine's FoundationOne research platform, which sequenced the exons and/or introns of 313 cancer-related genes. Mutually exclusive gene set analysis and Selected Events Linked by Evolutionary Conditions across Human Tumors were performed to identify mutually exclusive and co-occurring gene alterations. Comparisons were performed with data on 495 lung SqCC downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations between genetic variants and survival. RESULTS: NGS data are reported for 1672 patients enrolled on S1400 between 2014 and 2019. Mutually exclusive gene set analysis identified two non-overlapping sets of mutually exclusive alterations with a false discovery rate of less than 15%: NFE2L2, KEAP1, and PARP4; and CDKN2A and RB1. PARP4, a relatively uncharacterized gene, showed three frequent mutations suggesting functional significance: 3116T>C (I1039T), 3176A>G (Q1059R), and 3509C>T (T1170I). When taken together, NFE2L2 and KEAP1 alterations were associated with poorer survival. CONCLUSIONS: As the largest dataset to date of lung SqCC profiled on a clinical trial, the S1400 NGS dataset establishes a rich resource for biomarker discovery. Mutual exclusivity of PARP4 and NFE2L2 or KEAP1 alterations suggests that PARP4 may have an uncharacterized role in a key pathway known to impact oxidative stress response and treatment resistance.

Longitudinal Analyses of Circulating Tumor DNA for the Detection of EGFR Mutation-Positive Advanced NSCLC Progression During Treatment: Data From FLAURA and AURA3.

INTRODUCTION: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI)-sensitizing and -resistance mutations may be detected in plasma through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Circulating tumor DNA level changes reflect alterations in tumor burden and could be a dynamic indicator of treatment effect. This analysis aimed to determine whether longitudinal EGFR-mutation ctDNA testing could detect progressive disease (PD) before radiologic detection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, exploratory ctDNA analysis in two phase 3 trials (FLAURA, NCT02296125; AURA3, NCT02151981). Patients had treatment-naïve (FLAURA) or EGFR-TKI pre-treated (AURA3) advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutations and on-study PD (RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]), with a baseline ctDNA result and EGFR-mutation ctDNA monitoring beyond Cycle 3 Day 1. Patients received osimertinib versus comparator EGFR-TKIs (FLAURA) or chemotherapy (AURA3). Outcomes included time from ctDNA PD to RECIST PD and the first subsequent treatment (FLAURA only). RESULTS: Circulating tumor DNA PD preceded or co-occurred with RECIST-defined PD in 93 out of 146 patients (64%) in FLAURA and 82 out of 146 patients (56%) in AURA3. Median time from ctDNA PD to RECIST-defined PD (mo) was 3.4 and 2.6 in the osimertinib and comparator EGFR-TKI arms (FLAURA) and 2.8 and 1.5 in the osimertinib and chemotherapy arms (AURA3). In FLAURA, the median time from ctDNA PD to the first subsequent treatment (mo) was 6.0 and 4.7 in the osimertinib (n = 51) and comparator EGFR-TKI arms (n = 70). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC receiving EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy with ctDNA data and RECIST-defined PD, ctDNA PD preceded/co-occurred with RECIST-defined PD in approximately 60% of cases. Longitudinal ctDNA monitoring may detect PD before radiologic PD.

Timeliness of EGFR/ALK Inhibitor Treatment and Survival in Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: ALK or EGFR inhibitor is an ideal frontline treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring targetable alteration in ALK or EGFR. However, in the real-world setting, frontline treatment may be delayed or not ideal. For such patients, the benefit of initiating ALK or EGFR inhibitor at a later timepoint remains uninvestigated. METHODS: We utilized a nationwide electronic health record-derived, deidentified database collected from diverse oncology practices across the United States to investigate the timeliness of preferred targeted therapy (PTT). Individualized data obtained from patients with stage IV NSCLC at diagnosis treated with PTT from 2018 to 2023 were analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 3250 patients were analyzed: 2640 patients (81%) with EGFR mutation and 610 patients (19%) with ALK rearrangement. The median time to PTT was 7 weeks from diagnosis with 26.4% of patients started PTT within 1 month. Landmark analyses using timepoints ranging from 1 to 12 months after diagnosis showed that at all timepoints, patients who had started on PTT had a significantly better survival than those who had not. In a multivariable analysis, time to PTT ≤ 1 month from diagnosis was an independent predictor of survival: HR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.89), P = .002. Time to PTT was significantly associated with age, smoking status and genomic class. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, an initiation of PTT occurring as late as at least 1 year from diagnosis still resulted in a significant survival benefit, though the magnitude of benefit appeared decreased as time passed.

A Practical Review of Encorafenib and Binimetinib Therapy Management in Patients with BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

Pragmaticism in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials are essential for advancing oncology treatment strategies and have contributed significantly to the decline in cancer mortality rates over the past decades. Traditional explanatory trials, focused on establishing intervention efficacy in ideal settings, often lack generalizability and may not reflect real-world patient care scenarios. Furthermore, increasing complexity in cancer clinical trial design has led to challenges such as protocol deviations, slow enrollment leading to lengthened durations of trial, and escalating costs. By contrast, pragmatic trials aim to assess intervention effectiveness in more representative patient populations under routine clinical conditions. Here, we review the principles, methodologies, challenges, and advantages of incorporating pragmatic features (PFs) into cancer clinical trials. We illustrate the application of pragmatic trial designs in oncology and discuss the QUASAR collaborative, TAPUR study, and the ongoing PRAGMATICA-LUNG trial. Although not all oncology trials may be amenable to adopting fully pragmatic designs, integration of PFs when feasible will enhance trial generalizability and real-world applicability. Project Pragmatica and similar initiatives advocate for the integration of real-world practice with clinical trials, fostering a nuanced approach to oncology research that balances efficacy and effectiveness assessments, ultimately with a goal of improving patient outcomes.

High Pretreatment DHEA Is Associated with Inferior Immunotherapy Response in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Background: Sex difference in the immune response may influence patients' response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We conducted a prospective observation study to determine the correlation between pretreatment sex hormone levels and response to ICIs in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Method: Pretreatment plasma samples from 61 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC prior to ICI therapy were collected. Six sex hormone levels [pyrazole triol, 17 ß-estradiol, 5-androstenediol, 3ß-androstenediol, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and S-equol] were measured using liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between the high- and low-level groups in the whole cohort. Result: Among the six sex hormones measured, DHEA levels were significantly higher among patients without clinical benefits in the discovery cohort; the remaining sex hormones did not differ significantly. In the whole cohort, median PFS was 22 months for patients with low DHEA levels vs. 3.8 months for those with high DHEA [hazard ratio, 14.23 (95% CI, 4.7-43); p < 0.001]. A significant association was also observed for OS [hazard ratio, 8.2 (95% CI, 2.89-23.35); p < 0.0001]. Conclusions: High pretreatment plasma DHEA levels were associated with poor clinical outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with ICIs.

ctDNA for the Evaluation and Management of EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a new paradigm in optimizing treatment strategies for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its potential spans early-stage disease, influencing adjuvant therapy, to advanced disease, where it aids in identifying genomic markers and resistance mechanisms. This review explores the evolving landscape of utilizing liquid biopsies, specifically circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), in the management of NSCLC with EGFR mutations. While tissue-based genomic testing remains the cornerstone for clinical decision-making, liquid biopsies offer a well-validated, guideline-recommended alternative approach. Ongoing trials integrating ctDNA for EGFR-mutant NSCLC management are also discussed, shedding light on the potential of ctDNA in early-stage disease, including its applications in prognostication, risk stratification, and minimal residual disease detection post-curative intent treatment. For advanced disease, the role of ctDNA in identifying resistance mechanisms to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is explored, providing insights into disease progression and guiding treatment decisions. This review also addresses the challenges, including the limitations in sensitivity of current assays for disease recurrence detection, and calls for future studies to refine treatment approaches, standardize reporting, and explore alternative biofluids for enhanced sensitivity. A systematic approach is crucial to address barriers to ctDNA deployment, ensuring equitable access, and facilitating its integration into routine clinical practice.

STAR-121: A Phase III Randomized Study of Domvanalimab and Zimberelimab in Combination With Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab With Chemotherapy in Untreated Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With No Actionable Gene Alterations.

INTRODUCTION: Dual inhibition with a T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domains plus programmed death (ligand)-1 (PD[L]-1) inhibitors, with or without chemotherapy, is an emerging therapeutic strategy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The STAR-121 (NCT05502237) phase III, global, randomized, open-label study will investigate first-line domvanalimab (anti-TIGIT) and zimberelimab (anti-PD-1) plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in mNSCLC with no actionable gene alterations. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Approximately 720 participants (≥18 years old) with untreated mNSCLC and no EGFR and ALK mutations will be randomized into 3 groups (A, B, or C) in a 4:4:1 ratio and stratified by baseline PD-L1 expression (tumor cells <50% vs. ≥50%), histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), and geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia). Group A will receive domvanalimab 1200 mg plus zimberelimab 360 mg plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PT), group B will receive pembrolizumab 200 mg plus PT, and group C will receive zimberelimab 360 mg plus PT, every 3 weeks. Treatment will be administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and overall survival for group A versus B. Key secondary endpoints comprise overall response rate (by BICR), safety, and quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include efficacy and safety between groups A and C, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Enrollment in the STAR-121 study commenced on October 12, 2022, and is currently ongoing with completion planned by September 2024. The study completion is expected by December 2027.

Consolidation Osimertinib Versus Durvalumab Versus Observation After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Unresectable EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab improves survival when used as consolidation therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC. The optimal consolidation therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) stage III NSCLC remains unknown. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, international retrospective analysis across 24 institutions, we evaluated outcomes in patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT followed by consolidation therapy with osimertinib, durvalumab, or observation between 2015 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS, primary end point) and overall survival (secondary end point). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) during consolidation treatment were defined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent CRT, 56 received consolidation durvalumab, 33 received consolidation osimertinib, and 47 was on observation alone. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three cohorts. With a median follow-up of 46 months for the entire cohort, the median duration of treatment was not reached (NR) for osimertinib (interquartile range: NR-NR) and was 5.5 (interquartile range: 2.4-10.8) months with durvalumab. After adjusting for nodal status, stage III A/B/C, and age, patients treated with consolidation osimertinib had significantly longer 24-month rwPFS compared to those treated with durvalumab or in the observation cohorts (osimertinib: 86%, durvalumab: 30%, observation: 27%, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in rwPFS between the durvalumab and the observation cohorts. No significant difference in overall survival across the three cohorts was detected, likely due to the limited follow-up. Any-grade trAE occurred in 52% (2 [6.1%] grade ≥3) and 48% (10 [18%] grade ≥3) of patients treated with osimertinib and durvalumab, respectively. Of 45 patients who progressed on consolidation durvalumab, 37 (82%) subsequently received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Of these, 14 (38%) patients developed trAEs including five patients with pneumonitis (14%; 2 [5.4%] grade ≥3) and five patients with diarrhea (14%; 1 [2.7%] grade ≥3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that among patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, consolidation osimertinib was associated with a significantly longer rwPFS compared to durvalumab or observation. No unanticipated safety signals were observed with consolidation osimertinib.

Multi-omics Analysis Reveals Immune Features Associated with Immunotherapy Benefit in Patients with Squamous Cell Lung Cancer from Phase III Lung-MAP S1400I Trial.

PURPOSE: Identifying molecular and immune features to guide immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens remains an unmet clinical need. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tissue and longitudinal blood specimens from phase III trial S1400I in patients with metastatic squamous non-small cell carcinoma (SqNSCLC) treated with nivolumab monotherapy (nivo) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo+ipi) were subjected to multi-omics analyses including multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF), nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel, whole-exome sequencing, and Olink. RESULTS: Higher immune scores from immune gene expression profiling or immune cell infiltration by mIF were associated with response to ICIs and improved survival, except regulatory T cells, which were associated with worse overall survival (OS) for patients receiving nivo+ipi. Immune cell density and closer proximity of CD8+GZB+ T cells to malignant cells were associated with superior progression-free survival and OS. The cold immune landscape of NSCLC was associated with a higher level of chromosomal copy-number variation (CNV) burden. Patients with LRP1B-mutant tumors had a shorter survival than patients with LRP1B-wild-type tumors. Olink assays revealed soluble proteins such as LAMP3 increased in responders while IL6 and CXCL13 increased in nonresponders. Upregulation of serum CXCL13, MMP12, CSF-1, and IL8 were associated with worse survival before radiologic progression. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency, distribution, and clustering of immune cells relative to malignant ones can impact ICI efficacy in patients with SqNSCLC. High CNV burden may contribute to the cold immune microenvironment. Soluble inflammation/immune-related proteins in the blood have the potential to monitor therapeutic benefit from ICI treatment in patients with SqNSCLC.

Pan-Tumor Analytical Validation and Osimertinib Clinical Validation in EGFR Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, Supporting the First Next-Generation Sequencing Liquid Biopsy in Vitro Diagnostic.

Comprehensive genotyping is necessary to identify therapy options for patients with advanced cancer; however, many cancers are not tested, partly because of tissue limitations. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) liquid biopsies overcome some limitations, but clinical validity is not established and adoption is limited. Herein, clinical bridging studies used pretreatment plasma samples and data from FLAURA (NCT02296125; n = 441) and AURA3 (NCT02151981; n = 450) pivotal studies to demonstrate clinical validity of Guardant360 CDx (NGS LBx) to identify patients with advanced EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer who may benefit from osimertinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with EGFR mutation as identified by NGS LBx had significant PFS benefit with first-line osimertinib over standard of care (15.2 versus 9.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; P < 0.0001) and with later-line osimertinib over chemotherapy (8.3 versus 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.34; P < 0.0001). PFS benefits were similar to the original trial cohorts selected by tissue-based EGFR testing. Analytical validation included accuracy, precision, limit of detection, and specificity. Analytical validity was established for EGFR mutation detection and pan-tumor profiling. Panel-wide limit of detection was 0.1% to 0.5%, with 98% to 100% per-sample specificity. Patients with EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer by NGS LBx had improved PFS with osimertinib, confirming clinical validity. Analytical validity was established for guideline-recommended therapeutic targets across solid tumors. The resulting US Food and Drug Administration approval of NGS LBx demonstrated safety and effectiveness for its intended use and is expected to improve adherence to guideline-recommended targeted therapy use.

Osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation.

Background: The optimal treatment sequencing for patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a subject of debate. In the United States, osimertinib is the preferred EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in the first-line setting. However, small retrospective studies suggest that alternative EGFR TKI sequencing strategies may produce similar outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation treated with osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line therapy. Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study examined 86 patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with either afatinib (n=15) or osimertinib (n=71) in the first-line setting. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included time on EGFR TKI, overall survival (OS), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: There was no difference in the PFS (median: 27.9 vs. 29.0 months, P=0.75), OS (P=0.18), and the median time on first-line EGFR TKI (23.9 vs. 15.2 months, P=0.10) between the afatinib and osimertinib groups, respectively. The number of AEs was also similar between the two treatment groups (P=0.17). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective study, there were no differences in PFS or OS between patients treated with afatinib or osimertinib in the first-line setting. These findings should be further investigated in larger prospective studies.

Representativeness of Patients Enrolled in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).

PURPOSE: Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP), a public-private partnership, established infrastructure for conducting a biomarker-driven master protocol in molecularly targeted therapies. We compared characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP with those of patients in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials to examine if master protocols improve trial access. METHODS: We examined patients enrolled in Lung-MAP (2014-2020) according to sociodemographic characteristics. Proportions for characteristics were compared with those for a set of advanced NSCLC trials (2001-2020) and the US advanced NSCLC population using SEER registry data (2014-2018). Characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP treatment substudies were examined in subgroup analysis. Two-sided tests of proportions at an alpha of .01 were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 3,556 patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were compared with 2,215 patients enrolled in other NSCLC studies. Patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were more likely to be 65 years and older (57.2% v 46.3%; P < .0001), from rural areas (17.3% v 14.4%; P = .004), and from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods (42.2% v 36.7%, P < .0001), but less likely to be female (38.6% v 47.2%; P < .0001), Asian (2.8% v 5.1%; P < .0001), or Hispanic (2.4% v 3.8%; P = .003). Among patients younger than 65 years, Lung-MAP enrolled more patients using Medicaid/no insurance (27.6% v 17.8%; P < .0001). Compared with the US advanced NSCLC population, Lung-MAP under represented patients 65 years and older (57.2% v 69.8%; P < .0001), females (38.6% v 46.0%; P < .0001), and racial or ethnic minorities (14.8% v 21.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Master protocols may improve access to trials using novel therapeutics for older patients and socioeconomically vulnerable patients compared with conventional trials, but specific patient exclusion criteria influenced demographic composition. Further research examining participation barriers for under represented racial or ethnic minorities in precision medicine clinical trials is warranted.

A phase I/IB trial of binimetinib in combination with erlotinib in NSCLC harboring activating KRAS or EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in EGFR or KRAS are highly prevalent in NSCLC, share activation of the MAPK pathway and may be amenable to combination therapy to prevent negative feedback activation. METHODS: In this phase 1/1B trial, we tested the combination of binimetinib and erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC with at least 1 prior line of treatment (unless with activating EGFR mutation which could be treatment-naïve). A subsequent phase 1B expansion accrued patients with either EGFR- or KRAS-mutation using the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) from Phase 1. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of binimetinib plus erlotinib and establish the RP2D. RESULTS: 43 patients enrolled (dose-escalation = 23; expansion = 20). 17 harbored EGFR mutation and 22 had KRAS mutation. The RP2D was erlotinib 100 mg daily and binimetinib 15 mg BID × 5 days/week. Common AEs across all doses included diarrhea (69.8%), rash (44.2%), fatigue (32.6%), and nausea (32.6%), and were primarily grade 1/2. Among KRAS mutant patients, 1 (5%) had confirmed partial response and 8 (36%) achieved stable disease as best overall response. Among EGFR mutant patients, 9 were TKI-naïve with 8 (89%) having partial response, and 8 were TKI-pretreated with no partial responses and 1 (13%) stable disease as best overall response. CONCLUSIONS: Binimetinib plus erlotinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile and modest efficacy including one confirmed objective response in a KRAS mutant patient. While clinical utility of this specific combination was limited, these results support development of combinations using novel small molecule inhibitors of RAS, selective EGFR- and other MAPK pathway inhibitors, many of which have improved therapeutic indices. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01859026.

Early Clearance of Plasma Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations as a Predictor of Outcome on Osimertinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer; Exploratory Analysis from AURA3 and FLAURA.

PURPOSE: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis is used for genotyping advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); monitoring dynamic ctDNA changes may be used to predict outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, exploratory analysis of two phase III trials [AURA3 (NCT02151981), FLAURA (NCT02296125)]. All patients had EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm; ex19del or L858R) advanced NSCLC; AURA3 also included T790M-positive NSCLC. Osimertinib (FLAURA, AURA3), or comparator EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI; gefitinib/erlotinib; FLAURA), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (AURA3) was given. Plasma EGFRm was analyzed at baseline and Weeks 3/6 by droplet digital PCR. Outcomes were assessed by detectable/non-detectable baseline plasma EGFRm and plasma EGFRm clearance (non-detection) at Weeks 3/6. RESULTS: In AURA3 (n = 291), non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm had longer median progression-free survival [mPFS; HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.68; P < 0.0001]. In patients with Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 184), respectively, mPFS (months; 95% CI) was 10.9 (8.3-12.6) versus 5.7 (4.1-9.7) with osimertinib and 6.2 (4.0-9.7) versus 4.2 (4.0-5.1) with platinum-pemetrexed. In FLAURA (n = 499), mPFS was longer with non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70; P < 0.0001). For Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 334), respectively, mPFS was 19.8 (15.1 to not calculable) versus 11.3 (9.5-16.5) with osimertinib and 10.8 (9.7-11.1) versus 7.0 (5.6-8.3) with comparator EGFR-TKI. Similar outcomes were observed by Week 6 clearance/non-clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma EGFRm analysis as early as 3 weeks on-treatment has the potential to predict outcomes in EGFRm advanced NSCLC.