Erdafitinib in patients with advanced solid tumours with FGFR alterations (RAGNAR): an international, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: FGFR alterations are reported across various malignancies and might act as oncogenic drivers in multiple histologies. Erdafitinib is an oral, selective pan-FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in FGFR-altered advanced urothelial carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the safety and activity of erdafitinib in previously treated patients with FGFR-altered advanced solid tumours. METHODS: The single-arm, phase 2 RAGNAR study was conducted at 156 investigative centres (hospitals or oncology practices that are qualified oncology study centres) across 15 countries. The study consisted of four cohorts based on tumour histology and patient age; the results reported in this Article are for the primary cohort of the study, defined as the Broad Panel Cohort, which was histology-agnostic. We recruited patients aged 12 years or older with advanced or metastatic tumours of any histology (except urothelial cancer) with predefined FGFR1-4 alterations (mutations or fusions according to local or central testing). Eligible patients had disease progression on at least one previous line of systemic therapy and no alternative standard therapy available to them, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or equivalent for adolescents aged 12-17 years). Patients received once-daily oral erdafitinib (8 mg/day with provision for pharmacodynamically guided up-titration to 9 mg/day) on a continuous 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review committee according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, or Response Assessment In Neuro-Oncology (RANO). The primary analysis was conducted on the treated population of the Broad Panel Cohort. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04083976. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Dec 5, 2019, and Feb 15, 2022. Of 217 patients treated with erdafitinib, 97 (45%) patients were female and 120 (55%) were male. The data cutoff was Aug 15, 2022. At a median follow-up of 17·9 months (IQR 13·6-23·9), an objective response was observed in 64 (30% [95% CI 24-36]) of 217 patients across 16 distinct tumour types. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events related to erdafitinib were stomatitis (25 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (12 [6%]), and hyperphosphataemia (11 [5%]). The most commonly occurring serious treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were stomatitis in four (2%) patients and diarrhoea in two (1%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: RAGNAR results show clinical benefit for erdafitinib in the tumour-agnostic setting in patients with advanced solid tumours with susceptible FGFR alterations who have exhausted other treatment options. These results support the continued development of FGFR inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumours. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug's tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT. METHODS: A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes. RESULTS: International survey: 112 responses from 15 September-30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with Selpercatinib Among Patients with RET Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Phase I/II LIBRETTO-001 Trial.

BACKGROUND: LIBRETTO-001 is an ongoing, global, open-label, phase I/II study of selpercatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. We report interim patient-reported outcomes in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) version 3.0 at baseline (cycle 1, day 1), approximately every other 28-day cycle until cycle 13, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Data were evaluated through cycle 13 as few patients had reached later time points. A change of ≥10 points from baseline in domain scores was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Among 253 selpercatinib-treated patients, 239 were categorized into subgroups by prior therapy: treatment-naïve (n = 39), one prior line of therapy (n = 64), or two or more prior lines of therapy (n = 136). The QLQ-C30 was completed by >85% of patients at each time point. Most patients overall and in each subgroup maintained or improved in all health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains during treatment. The percentage of patients who experienced clinically meaningful improvements ranged from 61.1% to 66.7% for global health status, 33.3% to 61.1% for dyspnea, and 46.2% to 63.0% for pain. The 61.1% of patients with improved dyspnea had two or more prior lines of therapy; median time to first improvement was 3.4 months. At the first postbaseline evaluation (cycle 3), 45.9% of all patients reported a ≥10-point reduction in pain. CONCLUSION: In this interim analysis, the majority of patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC remained stable or improved on all QLQ-C30 subscales at each study visit, demonstrating favorable HRQoL as measured by the QLQ-C30 during treatment with selpercatinib.

Assessing cognitive toxicity in early phase trials - What are we missing?

OBJECTIVES: Novel therapies, such as, small protein molecule inhibitors and immunotherapies are first tested clinically in Phase I trials. Moving on to later phase trials and ultimately standard practice. A key aim of these early clinical trials is to define a toxicity profile; however, the emphasis is often on safety. The concern is cognitive toxicity is poorly studied in this context and may be under-reported. The aim of this review is to map evidence of cognitive assessment, toxicity, and confounding factors within reports from Phase I trials and consider putative mechanisms of impairment aligned with mechanisms of novel therapies. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was applied to the search of databases, including Embase, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov. A [keyword search was conducted, results screened for duplication then inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. Articles were further screened for relevance; data organised into categories and charted in a tabular format]. Evidence was collated and summarised into a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Despite the availability of robust ways to assess cognitive function, these are not routinely included in the conduct of early clinical trials. Reports of cognitive toxicity in early Phase I trials are limited and available evidence on this shows that a proportion of patients experience impaired cognitive function over the course of participating in a Phase I trial. Links are identified between the targeted action of some novel therapies and putative mechanisms of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: The review provides rationale for research investigating cognitive function in this context. A study exploring the cognitive function of patients on Phase I trials and the feasibility of formally assessing this within early clinical trials is currently underway at the Royal Marsden.

Intermittent schedules of the oral RAF-MEK inhibitor CH5126766/VS-6766 in patients with RAS/RAF-mutant solid tumours and multiple myeloma: a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: CH5126766 (also known as VS-6766, and previously named RO5126766), a novel MEK-pan-RAF inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity across various solid tumours; however, its initial development was limited by toxicity. We aimed to investigate the safety and toxicity profile of intermittent dosing schedules of CH5126766, and the antitumour activity of this drug in patients with solid tumours and multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. METHODS: We did a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust (London, UK). Patients were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 years or older, had cancers that were refractory to conventional treatment or for which no conventional therapy existed, and if they had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1. For the dose-escalation phase, eligible patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic solid tumours. For the basket dose-expansion phase, eligible patients had advanced or metastatic solid tumours or multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. During the dose-escalation phase, we evaluated three intermittent oral schedules (28-day cycles) in patients with solid tumours: (1) 4·0 mg or 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week; (2) 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week; and (3) toxicity-guided dose interruption schedule, in which treatment at the recommended phase 2 dose (4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week) was de-escalated to 3 weeks on followed by 1 week off if patients had prespecified toxic effects (grade 2 or worse diarrhoea, rash, or creatinine phosphokinase elevation). In the basket dose-expansion phase, we evaluated antitumour activity at the recommended phase 2 dose, determined from the dose-escalation phase, in biomarker-selected patients. The primary endpoints were the recommended phase 2 dose at which no more than one out of six patients had a treatment-related dose-limiting toxicity, and the safety and toxicity profile of each dosing schedule. The key secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate in the dose-expansion phase. Patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were evaluable for safety and patients who received one cycle of the study drug and underwent baseline disease assessment were evaluable for response. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02407509. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and Jan 10, 2019, 58 eligible patients were enrolled to the study: 29 patients with solid tumours were included in the dose-escalation cohort and 29 patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma were included in the basket dose-expansion cohort (12 non-small-cell lung cancer, five gynaecological malignancy, four colorectal cancer, one melanoma, and seven multiple myeloma). Median follow-up at the time of data cutoff was 2·3 months (IQR 1·6-3·5). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 bilateral retinal pigment epithelial detachment in one patient who received 4·0 mg CH5126766 three times per week, and grade 3 rash (in two patients) and grade 3 creatinine phosphokinase elevation (in one patient) in those who received 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week. 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week (on Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday) was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were rash (11 [19%] patients), creatinine phosphokinase elevation (six [11%]), hypoalbuminaemia (six [11%]), and fatigue (four [7%]). Five (9%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Eight (14%) of 57 patients died during the trial due to disease progression. Seven (27% [95% CI 11·6-47·8]) of 26 response-evaluable patients in the basket expansion achieved objective responses. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that highly intermittent schedules of a RAF-MEK inhibitor has antitumour activity across various cancers with RAF-RAS-MEK pathway mutations, and that this inhibitor is tolerable. CH5126766 used as a monotherapy and in combination regimens warrants further evaluation. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Radiological evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma - defining distant metastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is traditionally characterized by local destructive spread of the pleura and surrounding tissues. Patient outcomes in MPM with distant metastatic dissemination are lacking. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed a cohort of 164 MPM patients referred to a Phase I trials unit, aiming to describe identified metastatic sites, and correlate with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 67% of patients were diagnosed with distant metastatic disease with a high incidence of bone (19%), visceral (14%), contralateral lung (35%) and peritoneal metastases (22%). Peritoneal metastases were more likely in epithelioid versus biphasic/ sarcomatoid MPM (p = 0.015). Overall survival was 23.8 months with no statistical difference in survival between those with distant metastases and those without. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights the frequency of distant metastases and encourages further radiological investigations in the presence of symptoms. In particular, given the relatively high incidence of bone metastases, bone imaging should be considered in advanced MPM clinical workflow and trial protocols. The presence of distant metastases does not appear to have prognostic implications under existing treatment paradigms. This cohort of MPM patients gives an indication of patterns of metastatic spread that are likely to become prevalent as prognosis improves with emerging treatment paradigms.

Characterisation of the Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Pathway in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells Isolated from Pleural Effusions.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesised that it was possible to quantify phosphorylation of important nodes in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway in cancer cells isolated from pleural effusions of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and study their correlation to somatic mutations and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cells were immunomagnetically separated from samples of pleural effusion in patients with NSCLC. p-AKT, p-S6K and p-GSK3ß levels were quantified by ELISA; targeted next-generation sequencing was used to characterise mutations in 26 genes. RESULTS: It was possible to quantify phosphoproteins in cells isolated from 38/43 pleural effusions. There was a significant correlation between p-AKT and p-S6K levels [r = 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.92), p < 0.0001], but not p-AKT and p-GSK3ß levels [r = 0.19 (95% confidence interval -0.16 to 0.5), p = 0.3]. A wide range of mutations was described and p-S6K was higher in samples that harboured at least one mutation compared to those that did not (p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, p-S6K levels were significantly associated with poor survival (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown a correlation between p-AKT levels and p-S6K, but not GSK3ß, suggesting differences in regulation of the distal PI3K pathway by AKT. Higher p-S6K levels were associated with adverse survival, making it a critically important target in NSCLC.

Patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of innovative patient-centric early phase dose-finding trial designs.

BACKGROUND: In light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. METHODS: A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development. RESULTS: Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose. CONCLUSIONS: Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.

The aim of dose-finding oncology trials is to make sure a treatment is safe, understand its side effects, and recommend the right dose (or doses) for future clinical trials. Traditionally, a patient's tolerance to treatment is assessed by doctors who evaluate toxicities (side-effects) using established grading guidelines. Research has shown that doctors might not identify all the side effects that patients actually experience during a trial.There is growing interest in the introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within dose-finding trials. PROs are reports of a patient's health and well-being experiences which come directly from the patient themselves, usually assessed using a questionnaire.In a dose-finding trial, we start with a low dose of a drug and increase it until too many patients have severe side effects. The highest safe dose is then investigated in a later phase trial.   We are suggesting a new way to do these trials. We want to look at both what doctors see as severe side effects and what patients say. This enables us to recommend a dose that balances both perspectives. We would also like to ask patients what level of risk they are comfortable with regarding severe side effects.In this paper, we highlight the importance of involving patients in creating advanced dose-finding trial designs, particularly with PROs to help decide whether a dose is tolerable for patients. We also share findings of a patient and public involvement and engagement session and provide a guide for meaningful patient involvement in developing trial designs.

Contrast Clearance Analysis (CCA) to Assess Viable Tumour following Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) to Brain Metastasis in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Brain metastases are common in lung cancer and increasingly treated using targeted radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Using MRI, post-SRS changes may be difficult to distinguish from progressive brain metastasis. Contrast clearance analysis (CCA) uses T1-weighted MRI images to assess the clearance of gadolinium and can be thus used to assess vascularity and active tumours. DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed CCAs in 62 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing 104 CCA scans in a single centre. RESULTS: The initial CCA suggested the aetiology of equivocal changes on standard MRI in 80.6% of patients. In all patients whose initial CCA showed post-SRS changes and who underwent serial CCAs, the initial diagnosis was upheld with the serial imaging. In only two cases of a presumed progressive tumour on the initial CCA, subsequent treatment for radionecrosis was instigated; a retrospective review and re-evaluation of the CCAs show that progression was reported where a thin rim of rapid contrast clearance was seen, and this finding has been subsequently recognised as a feature of post-treatment change on CCAs. The lack of concordance with CCA findings in those who underwent surgical resection was also found to be due to the over-reporting of the thin blue rim as disease in the early cases of CCA use and, in three cases, potentially related to timelines longer than 7 days prior to surgery, both factors being unknown during the early implementation phase of CCA at our centre but subsequently learned. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-centre experience shows CCA to be feasible and useful in patients with NSCLC in cases of diagnostic uncertainty in MRI. It has helped guide treatment in the majority of patients, with subsequent outcomes following the implementation of the treatment based on the results, suggesting correct classification. Recommendations from our experience of the implementation include the careful consideration of the thin rim of the rapid contrast clearance and the timing of the CCA prior to surgery for suspected brain metastasis progression.

A single-centre study evaluating a geriatric screening tool in oncology phase I trial patients.

BACKGROUND: Though cancer is more prevalent in the older population, this patient group are underrepresented in phase I oncology trials. AIMS: We evaluated the use of a geriatric screening tool (SAOP3) in patients of 70 years of age or older who attended a Phase I Clinical Trials Unit, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of the tool and identifying potential unmet needs in this patient group. METHODS: Twenty-two patients over the age of 70 completed the SAOP3 questionnaire. Geriatric impairments and needs were analysed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses were grouped in themes using structured thematic analysis. RESULTS: All of patients triggered at least 1 geriatric domain, most commonly mobility. Six core themes were identified as being important to the patient including family, friends and positivity. On cognition assessment over 20% of patients triggered as requiring further cognitive assessment. The group had a relatively high screen fail risk. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, routine geriatric screening withSAOP3 was feasible and identified areas of patient need. Results highlight the prevalence of psychological distress and cognitive impairment. Geriatric screening offers an opportunity for prehabilitation prior to trial and support during trial participation to optimise safety and improve trial access.

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.

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review.

Background: Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). Methods: DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions. Findings: Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally. Interpretation: This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting. Funding: EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.

Frequency, underdiagnosis, and heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion mutations using real-world genomic datasets.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations (ex20ins) account for ≤ 12% of all EGFR-mutant nonsmall cell lung cancers. We analysed real-world datasets to determine the frequency of ex20ins variants, and the ability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to identify them. Three real-world United States NGS databases were used: GENIE, FoundationInsights, and GuardantINFORM. Mutation profiles consistent with in-frame EGFR ex20ins were summarized. GENIE, FoundationInsights, and GuardantINFORM datasets identified 180, 627, and 627 patients with EGFR ex20ins respectively. The most frequent insertion region of exon 20 was the near loop (~ 70%), followed by the far loop (~ 30%) and the helical (~ 3-6%) regions. GENIE, FoundationInsights, and GuardantINFORM datasets identified 41, 102, and 96 unique variants respectively. An analysis of variants projected that ~ 50% of EGFR ex20ins identified by NGS would have been missed by PCR-based assays. Given the breadth of EGFR ex20ins identified in the real-world US datasets, the ability of PCR to identify these mutations is limited. NGS platforms are more appropriate to identify patients likely to benefit from EGFR ex20ins-targeted therapies.

Bexmarilimab-induced macrophage activation leads to treatment benefit in solid tumors: The phase I/II first-in-human MATINS trial.

Macrophage Clever-1 contributes to impaired antigen presentation and suppression of anti-tumor immunity. This first-in-human trial investigates the safety and tolerability of Clever-1 blockade with bexmarilimab in patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors and assesses preliminary anti-tumor efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. Bexmarilimab shows no dose-limiting toxicities in part I (n = 30) and no additional safety signals in part II (n = 108). Disease control (DC) rates of 25%-40% are observed in cutaneous melanoma, gastric, hepatocellular, estrogen receptor-positive breast, and biliary tract cancers. DC associates with improved survival in a landmark analysis and correlates with high pre-treatment intratumoral Clever-1 positivity and increasing on-treatment serum interferon γ (IFNγ) levels. Spatial transcriptomics profiling of DC and non-DC tumors demonstrates bexmarilimab-induced macrophage activation and stimulation of IFNγ and T cell receptor signaling selectively in DC patients. These data suggest that bexmarilimab therapy is well tolerated and show that macrophage targeting can promote immune activation and tumor control in late-stage cancer.

Amivantamab plus lazertinib in osimertinib-relapsed EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 1 trial.

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often develop resistance to current standard third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); no targeted treatments are approved in the osimertinib-relapsed setting. In this open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1 trial, the potential for improved anti-tumor activity by combining amivantamab, an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody, with lazertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, was evaluated in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC whose disease progressed on third-generation TKI monotherapy but were chemotherapy naive (CHRYSALIS cohort E). In the dose-escalation phase, the recommended phase 2 combination dose was established; in the dose-expansion phase, the primary endpoints were safety and overall response rate, and key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival. The safety profile of amivantamab and lazertinib was generally consistent with previous experience of each agent alone, with 4% experiencing grade ≥3 events; no new safety signals were identified. In an exploratory cohort of 45 patients who were enrolled without biomarker selection, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate was 36% (95% confidence interval, 22-51). The median duration of response was 9.6 months, and the median progression-free survival was 4.9 months. Next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry analyses identified high EGFR and/or MET expression as potential predictive biomarkers of response, which will need to be validated with prospective assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02609776 .

BRIM-1, -2 and -3 trials: improved survival with vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with a BRAF(V600E) mutation.

Following Phase I and II studies revealing vemurafenib to be a safe potent inhibitor of mutated BRAF in patients with metastatic melanoma, a multicenter randomized Phase III trial was carried out to compare vemurafenib with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients. The interim analysis results from this trial, BRIM-3, were sufficient for an independent data and safety monitoring board to recommend crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib, vemurafenib being associated with a relative risk reduction of 63% in the risk of death and 74% in the risk of death or disease progression compared with dacarbazine (p < 0.001 for both comparisons) with an acceptable toxicity profile. Such striking results have prompted analysis of our approach to the classification and treatment of metastatic melanoma in an age of molecular markers and targeted therapy.

Splenic volume as a predictor of treatment response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The spleen is a lymphoid organ and we hypothesize that clinical benefit to immunotherapy may present with an increase in splenic volume during treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether changes in splenic volume could be observed in those showing clinical benefit versus those not showing clinical benefit to pembrolizumab treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 70 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab; and who underwent baseline CT scan within 2 weeks before treatment and follow-up CT within 3 months after commencing immunotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The splenic volume on each CT was segmented manually by outlining the splenic contour on every image and the total volume summated. We compared the splenic volume in those achieving a clinical benefit and those not achieving clinical benefit, using non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Clinical benefit was defined as stable disease or partial response lasting for greater than 24 weeks. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There were 23 responders and 47 non-responders based on iRECIST criteria and 35 patients with clinical benefit and 35 without clinical benefit. There was no significant difference in the median pre-treatment volume (175 vs 187 cm3, p = 0.34), post-treatment volume (168 vs 167 cm3, p = 0.39) or change in splenic volume (-0.002 vs 0.0002 cm3, p = 0.97) between the two groups. No significant differences were also found between the splenic volume of patients with partial response, stable disease or progressive disease (p>0.017). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between progression-free survival and time to disease progression when the splenic volume was categorized as smaller or larger than the median pre-treatment or post-treatment volume (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in the splenic volume of those showing clinical benefit versus those without clinical benefit to pembrolizumab treatment in NSCLC patients. CT splenic volume cannot be used as a potentially simple biomarker of response to immunotherapy.

Amivantamab compared with real-world therapies in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In the single-arm CHRYSALIS study, amivantamab showed durable responses and manageable safety in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations (ex20ins) who progressed on prior platinum-based chemotherapy. External controls can provide context for interpreting amivantamab efficacy. METHODS: External controls were selected from three US-based databases (ConcertAI, COTA, and Flatiron). Key inclusion criteria were diagnosis of EGFR ex20ins advanced NSCLC, prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and performance status score ≤ 1. Duplicate external controls were identified using a tokenization procedure and removed, and adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between amivantamab-treated and external control cohorts was achieved using propensity score weighting. RESULTS: Amivantamab-treated and pooled external control cohorts included 81 and 125 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across cohorts, except more amivantamab-treated patients were Asian (56% vs 13%). Most common therapies received by external controls were non-platinum-based chemotherapy (25.1%), immuno-oncology therapies (24.2%), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (16.3%), and platinum-based chemotherapy (16.3%). Overall response rate was 40% among amivantamab-treated patients and 16% among external controls. Amivantamab-treated patients had longer progression-free survival (median 8.3 vs 2.9 months; hazard ratio [HR; 95% CI]: 0.47 [0.34-0.65]), time to next therapy (median 14.8 vs 4.8 months; HR [95% CI]: 0.40 [0.28-0.57]), and overall survival (median 22.8 vs 12.8 months; HR [95% CI]: 0.49 [0.31-0.77]) than external controls. Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses comparing each external control dataset against the amivantamab-treated group separately. CONCLUSION: Among post-platinum patients with EGFR ex20ins advanced NSCLC, those treated with amivantamab had improved outcomes, including 10-month longer overall survival, versus external controls.