Glycine decarboxylase activity drives non-small cell lung cancer tumor-initiating cells and tumorigenesis.

Identification of the factors critical to the tumor-initiating cell (TIC) state may open new avenues in cancer therapy. Here we show that the metabolic enzyme glycine decarboxylase (GLDC) is critical for TICs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TICs from primary NSCLC tumors express high levels of the oncogenic stem cell factor LIN28B and GLDC, which are both required for TIC growth and tumorigenesis. Overexpression of GLDC and other glycine/serine enzymes, but not catalytically inactive GLDC, promotes cellular transformation and tumorigenesis. We found that GLDC induces dramatic changes in glycolysis and glycine/serine metabolism, leading to changes in pyrimidine metabolism to regulate cancer cell proliferation. In the clinic, aberrant activation of GLDC correlates with poorer survival in lung cancer patients, and aberrant GLDC expression is observed in multiple cancer types. This link between glycine metabolism and tumorigenesis may provide novel targets for advancing anticancer therapy.

Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for Asian patients in Phase I clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection is key in Phase I studies, and prognosis can be difficult to estimate in heavily pre-treated patients. Previous prognostic models like the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score or using the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have not been validated in current novel therapies nor in the Asian Phase I population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 414 patients with solid tumours participating in Phase I studies at our centre between October 2013 and December 2020. RESULTS: The RMH model showed poorer prognosis with increasing scores [RMH score 1, HR 1.28 (95% CI: 0.96-1.70); RMH score 2, HR 2.27 (95% CI: 1.62-3.17); RMH score 3, HR 4.14 (95% CI: 2.62-6.53)]. NLR did not improve the AUC of the model. Poorer ECOG status (ECOG 1 vs. 0: HR = 1.59 (95% CI = 1.24-2.04), P < 0.001) and primary tumour site (GI vs. breast cancer: HR = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.16-4.35, P < 0.001) were prognostic. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a NCIS prognostic score with excellent prognostic ability for both short-term and longer-term survival (iAUC: 0.71 [95% CI 0.65-0.76]), and validated the RMH model in the largest Asian study to date.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years. WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?: After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib.

Risk factors for immune-related adverse events from anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment in an Asian cohort of nonsmall cell lung cancer patients.

Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be serious and unpredictable. We examine the incidence rate and risk factors for IrAEs in an Asian cohort of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with immunotherapy. Between June 2014 and August 2020, we retrospectively analysed IrAEs in NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 inhibitors at the National University Cancer Institute, Singapore. A Poisson regression model was used to estimate the effect of risk factors on incidence rate of any grade IrAEs. One hundred and forty-one patients were enrolled. Median age was 63. Majority were male (67%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0-1 (77%). More than half (56%) received pembrolizumab. Eleven percent harboured epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. Eighteen percent received concomitant chemotherapy. Median number of cycles was 4, and median duration of treatment was 2.1 months. IrAEs were seen in 71 (50.4%) patients, with an incidence rate of 99 events per 1000 person-months. Fatigue (25%), rash (10.5%) and pneumonitis (7.9%) were the most common IrAEs. Twenty out of 152 IrAEs (13.2%) were Grade 3 or higher in severity: most common being pneumonitis (5.3%), fatigue (3.3%) and transaminitis (1.3%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that concomitant chemotherapy use, higher BMI and presence of EGFR mutation are significant predictors for IrAEs (P < .0001; P = .016; P = .007). Our findings can help guide risk stratification and monitoring of IrAEs among NSCLC patients on immunotherapy.

Dendritic cell therapy with CD137L-DC-EBV-VAX in locally recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma is safe and confers clinical benefit.

INTRODUCTION: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and provides a target for a dendritic cell (DC) vaccine. CD137 ligand (CD137L) expressed on antigen presenting cells, costimulates CD137-expressing T cells, and reverse CD137L signaling differentiates monocytes to CD137L-DC, a type of DC, which is more potent than classical DC in stimulating T cells. METHODS: In this phase I study, patients with locally recurrent or metastatic NPC were administered CD137L-DC pulsed with EBV antigens (CD137L-DC-EBV-VAX). RESULTS: Of the 12 patients treated, 9 received full 7 vaccine doses with a mean administered cell count of 23.9 × 106 per dose. Treatment was well tolerated with only 4 cases of grade 1 related adverse events. A partial response was obtained in 1 patient, and 4 patients are still benefitting from a progression free survival (PFS) of currently 2-3 years. The mean pre-treatment neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio was 3.4 and a value of less than 3 was associated with prolonged median PFS. Progressors were characterized by a high frequency of naïve T cells but a low frequency of CD8+ effector T cells while patients with a clinical benefit (CB) had a high frequency of memory T cells. Patients with CB had lower plasma EBV DNA levels, and a reduction after vaccination. CONCLUSION: CD137L-DC-EBV-VAX was well tolerated. The use of CD137L-DC-EBV-VAX is demonstrated to be safe. Consistent results were obtained from all 12 patients, indicating that CD137L-DC-EBV-VAX induces an anti-EBV and anti-NPC immune response, and warranting further studies in patients post effective chemotherapy. PRECIS: The first clinical testing of CD137L-DC, a new type of monocyte-derived DC, finds that CD137L-DC are safe, and that they can induce an immune response against Epstein-Barr virus-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma that leads to tumor regression or prevents tumor progression.

Low-dose pembrolizumab in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

A dose of 200 mg 3-weekly of pembrolizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without oncogenic drivers. This is despite evidence showing no difference in efficacy with 2 mg/kg. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of a lower fixed dose of 100 mg, which is closer to 2 mg/kg weight-based dose in an average-sized Asian patient. All patients receiving pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC from January 2016 to March 2020 in National University Hospital, Singapore, were included in this retrospective observational study. The effect of pembrolizumab 100 mg (Pem100) vs 200 mg (Pem200) upon survival outcomes, toxicity and cost were examined. One hundred fourteen patients received pembrolizumab. Sixty-five (57%) and 49 (43%) received Pem100 and Pem200, respectively. There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between Pem100 vs Pem200 as a single agent (PFS: 6.8 vs 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-1.46, P = .36; 9 month OS: 58% vs 63%, HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.48-2.41, P = .86) and when combined with chemotherapy (9-month PFS: 60% vs 50%, HR0.84, 95% CI 0.34-2.08, P = .71; 9-month OS: 85% vs 58%, HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.062-1.20, P = .09). No significant difference in response rate or ≥G3 immune-related toxicities between Pem100 and Pem200 was observed. A cost minimisation analysis evaluating the degree of cost savings related to drug costs estimated a within study cost saving of SGD4,290,912 and cost saving per patient of SGD39,942 in the Pem100 group. A 100 mg of pembrolizumab appears to be effective with reduction in cost. A randomised trial should be done to investigate a lower dose of pembrolizumab.

"Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using "PD-L1" as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations "English" and "human". 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating the addition of low dose, short course sunitinib to docetaxel in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that low-dose, short-course sunitinib prior to neoadjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) normalised tumour vasculature and improved perfusion, but resulted in neutropenia and delayed subsequent cycles in breast cancer patients. This study combined sunitinib with docetaxel, which has an earlier neutrophil nadir than AC. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS). RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.

Sequential afatinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: final analysis of the GioTag study.

Aim: Final overall survival (OS) and time on treatment analysis of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 203) had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and started osimertinib treatment ≥10 months before data entry. Primary outcome was time on treatment; OS analysis was exploratory. Results: Median time on treatment with afatinib and osimertinib was 27.7 months (90% CI: 26.7-29.9). Median OS was 37.6 months (90% CI: 35.5-41.3); median OS was 41.6 and 44.8 months in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients, respectively. Conclusion: In real-world clinical practice, sequential afatinib and osimertinib was associated with encouraging outcomes in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, especially in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03370770 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets ALK and ROS1 with preclinical activity against most known resistance mutations in ALK and ROS1. We investigated the antitumour activity and safety of lorlatinib in advanced, ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less (≤1 for phase 1 only) from 28 hospitals in 12 countries worldwide. Lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (escalating doses of 10 mg once daily to 100 mg twice daily in phase 1 only) was given orally in continuous 21-day cycles until investigator-determined disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response, assessed by independent central review. Activity endpoints were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2014, and Oct 2, 2016, we assessed 364 patients, of whom 69 with ROS1-positive NSCLC were enrolled. 21 (30%) of 69 patients were TKI-naive, 40 (58%) had previously received crizotinib as their only TKI, and eight (12%) had previously received one non-crizotinib ROS1 TKI or two or more ROS1 TKIs. The estimated median duration of follow-up for response was 21·1 months (IQR 15·2-30·3). 13 (62%; 95% CI 38-82) of 21 TKI-naive patients and 14 (35%; 21-52) of 40 patients previously treated with crizotinib as their only TKI had an objective response. Intracranial responses were achieved in seven (64%; 95% CI 31-89) of 11 TKI-naive patients and 12 (50%; 29-71) of 24 previous crizotinib-only patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertriglyceridaemia (13 [19%] of 69 patients) and hypercholesterolaemia (ten [14%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in five (7%) of 69 patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Lorlatinib showed clinical activity in patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases and those previously treated with crizotinib. Because crizotinib-refractory patients have few treatment options, lorlatinib could represent an important next-line targeted agent. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Rogaratinib in patients with advanced cancers selected by FGFR mRNA expression: a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical activity of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors seems restricted to cancers harbouring rare FGFR genetic aberrations. In preclinical studies, high tumour FGFR mRNA expression predicted response to rogaratinib, an oral pan-FGFR inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety, maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of rogaratinib. METHODS: We did a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study of rogaratinib in adults with advanced cancers at 22 sites in Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, and France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and were ineligible for standard therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of at least 3 months, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. During dose escalation, rogaratinib was administered orally twice daily at 50-800 mg in continuous 21-day cycles using a model-based dose-response analysis (continuous reassessment method). In the dose-expansion phase, all patients provided an archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour biopsy or consented to a new biopsy at screening for the analysis of FGFR1-3 mRNA expression. In the dose-expansion phase, rogaratinib was given at the recommended dose for expansion to patients in four cohorts: urothelial carcinoma, head and neck squamous-cell cancer (HNSCC), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other solid tumour types. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, determination of maximum tolerated dose including dose-limiting toxicities and determination of recommended phase 2 dose, and pharmacokinetics of rogaratinib. Safety analyses were reported in all patients who received at least one dose of rogaratinib. Patients who completed cycle 1 or discontinued during cycle 1 due to an adverse event or dose-limiting toxicity were included in the evaluation of recommended phase 2 dose. Efficacy analyses were reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and who had available post-baseline efficacy data. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01976741, and is fully recruited. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and July 5, 2017, 866 patients were screened for FGFR mRNA expression, of whom 126 patients were treated (23 FGFR mRNA-unselected patients in the dose-escalation phase and 103 patients with FGFR mRNA-overexpressing tumours [52 patients with urothelial carcinoma, eight patients with HNSCC, 20 patients with NSCLC, and 23 patients with other tumour types] in the dose-expansion phase). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached; 800 mg twice daily was established as the recommended phase 2 dose and was selected for the dose-expansion phase. The most common adverse events of any grade were hyperphosphataemia (in 77 [61%] of 126 patients), diarrhoea (in 65 [52%]), and decreased appetite (in 48 [38%]); and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (in 11 [9%] of 126 patients) and asymptomatic increased lipase (in 10 [8%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in five patients (decreased appetite and diarrhoea in one patient with urothelial carcinoma, and acute kidney injury [NSCLC], hypoglycaemia [other solid tumours], retinopathy [urothelial carcinoma], and vomiting [urothelial carcinoma] in one patient each); no treatment-related deaths occurred. Median follow-up after cessation of treatment was 32 days (IQR 25-36 days). In the expansion cohorts, 15 (15%; 95% CI 8·6-23·5) out of 100 evaluable patients achieved an objective response, with responses recorded in all four expansion cohorts (12 in the urothelial carcinoma cohort and one in each of the other three cohorts), and in ten (67%) of 15 FGFR mRNA-overexpressing tumours without apparent FGFR genetic aberration. INTERPRETATION: Rogaratinib was well tolerated and clinically active against several types of cancer. Selection by FGFR mRNA expression could be a useful additional biomarker to identify a broader patient population who could be eligible for FGFR inhibitor treatment. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Sequential afatinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated analysis of the observational GioTag study.

Aims: Overall survival (OS) and updated time to treatment failure (TTF) analysis of patients with EGFR mutation-positive (Del19, L858R) non-small-cell lung cancer who received sequential afatinib/osimertinib in the real-world GioTag study. Patients & methods: Patients had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and received osimertinib treatment (n = 203). Primary outcome was TTF. The OS analysis was exploratory. Results: Median OS was 41.3 months (90% CI: 36.8-46.3) overall and 45.7 months (90% CI: 45.3-51.5) in patients with Del19-positive tumors (n = 149); 2-year survival was 80 and 82%, respectively. Updated median TTF with afatinib and osimertinib was 28.1 months (90% CI: 26.8-30.3). Conclusion: Sequential afatinib/osimertinib was associated with encouraging OS/TTF in patients with EGFR T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, especially in patients with Del19-positive tumors. Trial registration number: NCT03370770.

Somatic mutations and immune checkpoint biomarkers.

The development of molecular testing for identifying somatic mutations and immune checkpoint biomarkers has directed treatment towards personalized medicine for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The choice of molecular testing in a clinical setting is influenced by cost, expertise in the technology, instrumentation setup and sample type availability. The molecular techniques described in this review include immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization, direct sequencing, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry and next-generation sequencing (NGS). IHC is routinely used in clinical practice for the classification, differentiation, histology and identification of targetable alterations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1). Recently, the PD-L1 pathway was identified as being exploited by tumour cells, allowing immune resistance and tumour evasion. The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors as treatment for tumours expressing checkpoints has highlighted the need for standardized IHC assays to inform treatment decisions for patients. Direct sequencing was historically the gold standard for mutation testing for EGFR, KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue) and BRAF (v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1) requiring a high ratio of tumour to normal cells, but this has been superseded by more sensitive methods. NGS is a new emerging technique, which allows high-throughput coverage of frequently mutated genes, including less common BRAF and MET mutations and alterations in tumour suppressor genes. When an NGS platform is unavailable, PCR-based technologies offer an efficient and cost-effective single gene test to guide patient treatment. This article will review these techniques and discuss the future of molecular platforms underpinning clinical management decisions.

Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR-/ALK-), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. METHODS: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7-21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8-23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2-43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [<1%]), elevated transaminases (two [<1%]), vomiting (two [<1%]), and fatigue (two [<1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 27 (6%) of 444 patients overall: five (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 14 (5%) of 265 in cohort 2, and eight (12%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common serious adverse events overall were pneumonitis (five patients [1%]), fatigue (three [1%]), and infusion-related reaction (three [1%]). Immune-mediated events were manageable with standard treatment guidelines. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced and heavily pretreated NSCLC, the clinical activity and safety profile of durvalumab was consistent with that of other anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents. Responses were recorded in all cohorts; the proportion of patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC (cohorts 2 and 3) achieving a response was higher than the proportion with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC (cohort 1) achieving a response. The clinical activity of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+ NSCLC with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 was encouraging, and further investigation of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a global phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation inhibitor of ALK and ROS1 tyrosine kinases with broad coverage of ALK mutations. In a phase 1 study, activity was seen in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, most of whom had CNS metastases and progression after ALK-directed therapy. We aimed to analyse the overall and intracranial antitumour activity of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, patients with histologically or cytologically ALK-positive or ROS1-positive, advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Patients were enrolled into six different expansion cohorts (EXP1-6) on the basis of ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and were given lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response by independent central review, assessed in pooled subgroups of ALK-positive patients. Analyses of activity and safety were based on the safety analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib) as assessed by independent central review. Patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline by independent central review were included in the intracranial activity analyses. In this report, we present lorlatinib activity data for the ALK-positive patients (EXP1-5 only), and safety data for all treated patients (EXP1-6). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2015, and Oct 3, 2016, 276 patients were enrolled: 30 who were ALK positive and treatment naive (EXP1); 59 who were ALK positive and received previous crizotinib without (n=27; EXP2) or with (n=32; EXP3A) previous chemotherapy; 28 who were ALK positive and received one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy (EXP3B); 112 who were ALK positive with two (n=66; EXP4) or three (n=46; EXP5) previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with or without chemotherapy; and 47 who were ROS1 positive with any previous treatment (EXP6). One patient in EXP4 died before receiving lorlatinib and was excluded from the safety analysis set. In treatment-naive patients (EXP1), an objective response was achieved in 27 (90·0%; 95% CI 73·5-97·9) of 30 patients. Three patients in EXP1 had measurable baseline CNS lesions per independent central review, and objective intracranial responses were observed in two (66·7%; 95% CI 9·4-99·2). In ALK-positive patients with at least one previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP2-5), objective responses were achieved in 93 (47·0%; 39·9-54·2) of 198 patients and objective intracranial response in those with measurable baseline CNS lesions in 51 (63·0%; 51·5-73·4) of 81 patients. Objective response was achieved in 41 (69·5%; 95% CI 56·1-80·8) of 59 patients who had only received previous crizotinib (EXP2-3A), nine (32·1%; 15·9-52·4) of 28 patients with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 43 (38·7%; 29·6-48·5) of 111 patients with two or more previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EXP4-5). Objective intracranial response was achieved in 20 (87·0%; 95% CI 66·4-97·2) of 23 patients with measurable baseline CNS lesions in EXP2-3A, five (55·6%; 21·2-86·3) of nine patients in EXP3B, and 26 (53·1%; 38·3-67·5) of 49 patients in EXP4-5. The most common treatment-related adverse events across all patients were hypercholesterolaemia (224 [81%] of 275 patients overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4) and hypertriglyceridaemia (166 [60%] overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (7%) of 275 patients and seven patients (3%) permanently discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Consistent with its broad ALK mutational coverage and CNS penetration, lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity both in treatment-naive patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and in those who had progressed on crizotinib, second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or after up to three previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Thus, lorlatinib could represent an effective treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in first-line or subsequent therapy. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Third generation EGFR TKIs: current data and future directions.

Acquired T790 M mutation is the commonest cause of resistance for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant patients who had progressed after first line EGFR TKI (tyrosine kinase inhibitor). Several third generation EGFR TKIs which are EGFR mutant selective and wild-type (WT) sparing were developed to treat these patients with T790 M acquired resistant mutation. Osimertinib is one of the third generation EGFR TKIs and is currently the most advanced in clinical development. Unfortunately, despite good initial response, patients who was treated with third generation EGFR TKI would develop acquired resistance and several mechanisms had been identified and the commonest being C797S mutation at exon 20. Several novel treatment options were being developed for patients who had progressed on third generation EGFR TKI but they are still in the early phase of development. Osimertinib under FLAURA study had been shown to have better progression-free survival over first generation EGFR TKI in the first line setting and likely will become the new standard of care.

Value of a molecular screening program to support clinical trial enrollment in Asian cancer patients: The Integrated Molecular Analysis of Cancer (IMAC) Study.

The value of precision oncology initiatives in Asian contexts remains unresolved. Here, we review the institutional implementation of prospective molecular screening to facilitate accrual of patients into biomarker-driven clinical trials, and to explore the mutational landscape of advanced tumors occurring in a prospective cohort of Asian patients (n = 396) with diverse cancer types. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and routine clinicopathological assays, such as immunohistochemistry, copy number analysis and in situ hybridization tests, were performed on tumor samples. Actionable biomarker results were used to identify eligibility for early-phase, biomarker-driven clinical trials. Overall, NGS was successful in 365 of 396 patients (92%), achieving a mean depth of 1,943× and coverage uniformity of 96%. The median turnaround time from sample receipt to return of genomic results was 26.0 days (IQR, 19.0-39.0 days). Reportable mutations were found in 300 of 365 patients (82%). Ninety-one percent of patients at study enrollment indicated consent to receive incidental findings and willingness to undergo genetic counseling if required. The most commonly mutated oncogenes included KRAS (19%), PIK3CA (16%), EGFR (5%), BRAF (3%) and KIT (3%); while the most frequently mutated tumor suppressor genes included TP53 (40%), SMARCB1 (12%), APC (8%), PTEN (6%) and SMAD4 (5%). Among 23 patients enrolled in genotype-matched trials, median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (IQR, 1.5-4.0 months). Nine of 20 evaluable patients (45%; 95% CI, 23.1-68.5%) derived clinical benefit, including 3 partial responses and 6 with stable disease lasting ≥ 8 weeks.

Discovering novel SNPs that are correlated with patient outcome in a Singaporean cancer patient cohort treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) can influence patient outcome such as drug response and toxicity after drug intervention. The purpose of this study is to develop a systematic pathway approach to accurately and efficiently predict novel non-synonymous SNPs (nsSNPs) that could be causative to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy treatment outcome in Singaporean non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: Using a pathway approach that incorporates comprehensive protein-protein interaction data to systematically extend the gemcitabine pharmacologic pathway, we identified 77 related nsSNPs, common in the Singaporean population. After that, we used five computational criteria to prioritize the SNPs based on their importance for protein function. We specifically selected and screened six candidate SNPs in a patient cohort with NSCLC treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. RESULT: We performed survival analysis followed by hematologic toxicity analyses and found that three of six candidate SNPs are significantly correlated with the patient outcome (P < 0.05) i.e. ABCG2 Q141K (rs2231142), SLC29A3 S158F (rs780668) and POLR2A N764K (rs2228130). CONCLUSIONS: Our computational SNP candidate enrichment workflow approach was able to identify several high confidence biomarkers predictive for personalized drug treatment outcome while providing a rationale for a molecular mechanism of the SNP effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00695994. Registered 10 June, 2008 'retrospectively registered'.

Sequential treatment with afatinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: an observational study.

AIM: To assess outcomes in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (Del19, L858R) non-small-cell lung cancer receiving sequential afatinib and osimertinib in a real-world clinical setting. Materials & methods: In this retrospective, observational, multicenter study, patients (n = 204) had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and started osimertinib treatment ≥10 months prior to data entry. Primary outcome was time on treatment. RESULTS: Overall median time on treatment was 27.6 months (90% CI: 25.9-31.3), 30.3 months (90% CI: 27.6-44.5) in Del19-positive patients and 46.7 months (90% CI: 26.8-not reached) in Asians. The 2-year overall survival was 78.9%. CONCLUSION: In real-world clinical practice, sequential afatinib and osimertinib facilitates prolonged, chemotherapy-free treatment in patients with T790M acquired resistance, and is a potentially attractive strategy, especially for Del19-positive tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03370770.

Global named patient use program of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients who progressed following prior therapies.

AIM: A global afatinib named patient use program in non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) commenced in 2010. MATERIALS & METHODS: Eligible NSCLC patients had progressed after clinical benefit on prior erlotinib/gefitinib and/or had activating EGFR/HER2 mutations, exhausted all other treatments, and were ineligible for afatinib trials. RESULTS: Data, as of January 2016, were reported on 3966 heavily pretreated NSCLC patients (41 countries; six continents). Among 2595/3966 (65.4%) patients with tumor EGFR status, 2407 (92.8%) were EGFR mutation positive. Median time to treatment failure (2862/3966 [72.2%] patients with available data) was 4.4 months. Among 1141/2862 (39.9%) patients with response reported, objective response rate was 23.4% (267/1141). Safety findings were as expected. CONCLUSION: Time to treatment failure durations and objective response rates were encouraging.