Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (<20.0 kg/m2 ) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS ; >271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.

In-depth Analysis of Lorlatinib-related neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain penetrant, next-generation ALK/ROS1 TKI, with high response rates and durable responses, including the brain. However, a significant drawback is the manifestation of neurocognitive adverse events (NCAEs). Despite being generally low-grade in severity, these NCAEs can be physically and mentally disabling. Extensive neurocognitive testing in this group of patients is lacking; therefore we conducted this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational prospective study was conducted across 3 Dutch university hospitals. Patients with metastatic NSCLC with an ALK- or ROS1-rearrangement and having an indication to start lorlatinib in daily clinical practice were eligible. The primary endpoints were to identify changes in neurocognitive functioning, measured through neurocognitive assessment at intervals of 2 weeks and 2 months after starting lorlatinib, in comparison to baseline. As a secondary endpoint, the correlation between neurocognitive impairment and self-reported neurocognitive dysfunction was examined. RESULTS: Between June 2019 and October 2022, 22 patients were included. Among the various neurocognitive tests administered, only the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised parts b and c demonstrated a significant and clinically relevant decrease in scoring 2 weeks post initiation of lorlatinib (P = .036 and P = .003, respectively). However, these returned to baseline at the 2-month evaluation. The questionnaires did not result in significantly different outcomes over time. CONCLUSION: Lorlatinib treatment did not result in a sustained and significant decline within any of the specified neurocognitive domains.

Quantitative modeling of tumor dynamics and development of drug resistance in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib.

Insight into the development of treatment resistance can support the optimization of anticancer treatments. This study aims to characterize the tumor dynamics and development of drug resistance in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib, and investigate the relationship between baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) data and tumor dynamics. Data obtained for the analysis included (1) intensively sampled erlotinib concentrations from 29 patients from two previous pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, and (2) tumor sizes, ctDNA measurements, and sparsely sampled erlotinib concentrations from 18 patients from the START-TKI study. A two-compartment population PK model was first developed which well-described the PK data. The PK model was subsequently applied to investigate the exposure-tumor dynamics relationship. To characterize the tumor dynamics, models accounting for intra-tumor heterogeneity and acquired resistance with or without primary resistance were investigated. Eventually, the model assumed acquired resistance only resulted in an adequate fit. Additionally, models with or without exposure-dependent treatment effect were explored, and no significant exposure-response relationship for erlotinib was identified within the observed exposure range. Subsequently, the correlation of baseline ctDNA data on EGFR and TP53 variants with tumor dynamics' parameters was explored. The analysis indicated that higher baseline plasma EGFR mutation levels correlated with increased tumor growth rates, and the inclusion of ctDNA measurements improved model fit. This result suggests that quantitative ctDNA measurements at baseline have the potential to be a predictor of anticancer treatment response. The developed model can potentially be applied to design optimal treatment regimens that better overcome resistance.

Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Advanced KRASG12C-Mutated NSCLC Treated With Sotorasib.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC who are treated with sotorasib, there is a lack of biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. We therefore investigated the clinical utility of pretreatment and on-treatment circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and treatment-emergent alterations on disease progression. METHODS: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected before sotorasib treatment, at first-response evaluation and at disease progression. The TruSight Oncology 500 panel was used for ctDNA and variant allele frequency analysis. Tumor response and progression-free survival were assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA was detected in 50 of 66 patients (76%). Patients with detectable KRASG12C had inferior progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-4.30], p = 0.031) and overall survival (HR 2.61 [95% CI: 1.16-5.91], p = 0.017). At first-response evaluation (n = 40), 29 patients (73%) had a molecular response. Molecular nonresponders had inferior overall survival (HR 3.58 [95% CI: 1.65-7.74], p = 0.00059). The disease control rate was significantly higher in those with a molecular response (97% versus 64%, p = 0.015). KRAS amplifications were identified as recurrent treatment-emergent alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest detectable pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis and on-treatment ctDNA clearance as a marker for treatment response. We identified KRAS amplifications as a potential recurring resistance mechanism to sotorasib. Identifying patients with superior prognosis could aid in optimizing time of treatment initiation, and identifying patients at risk of early progression could allow for earlier treatment decisions.

Overall Survival From the EORTC LCG-1613 APPLE Trial of Osimertinib Versus Gefitinib Followed by Osimertinib in Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Osimertinib Plasma Trough Concentration in Relation to Brain Metastases Development in Patients With Advanced EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

Introduction: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated (EGFRm+) NSCLC. Despite good BM-related outcomes of osimertinib, several patients still experience intracranial progression. A possible explanation is pharmacologic failure due to low plasma trough levels (Cmin,SS) and consequently limited intracranial osimertinib exposure. We investigated the relation between osimertinib Cmin,SS and BM development or progression. Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study, including patients receiving osimertinib for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC. At osimertinib start, patients were allocated to the BM or no or unknown BM cohort and were further divided into subgroups based on osimertinib Cmin,SS (low, middle, and high exposure). Cumulative incidence of BM progression or development and overall survival were determined for each group. Results: A total of 173 patients were included, with 49 (28.3%) had baseline BM. Of these patients, 36.7% experienced BM progression, of which 16.7% in the low (<159.3 ng/mL), 40.0% in the middle, and 47.1% in the high (>270.7 ng/mL) Cmin,SS subgroups. After 12 months, the cumulative incidence of BM progression for the BM cohort was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-49.0), 31% (95% CI:10.6-53.9), and 31% (95% CI:10.8-54.5) per Cmin,SS subgroup, respectively. After 20 months, this was 20% (95% CI:2.6-49.0), 52% (95% CI:23.8-74.2), and 57% (95% CI:24.9-79.7), respectively. For the no or unknown BM cohort, 4.0% developed BM without differences within Cmin,SS subgroups. Conclusions: No relation was found between osimertinib Cmin,SS and BM development or progression in patients with advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC. This suggests that systemic osimertinib exposure is not a surrogate marker for BM development or progression.

Hepatotoxicity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with sotorasib after prior immunotherapy: a comprehensive clinical and pharmacokinetic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib given after immunotherapy could put patients at increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Therefore, there is a need to gain insight into the potential correlation between anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, anti-PD-(L)1 concentrations, sotorasib concentrations, and the incidence of hepatotoxicity during sotorasib. METHODS: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker cohort study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected prior and during sotorasib treatment for anti-PD-1 and sotorasib concentrations. ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increases were collected prospectively and graded according to CTCAEv5.0. Severe hepatotoxicity was defined as grade ≥3 ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increase. FINDINGS: Of the 91 included patients, 80 (88%) received prior anti-PD-(L)1. Prior anti-PD-(L)1 and prior immune-related hepatotoxicity were associated with a higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity (35% versus 0%, p = 0.016 and 75% versus 31%, p = 0.019, respectively). Patients with an interval of ≤6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib (n = 18) had a significantly higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity than those with a 6-12 week (n = 24) and ≥12 week (n = 38) interval (83% versus 33% versus 13%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Sotorasib trough concentrations did not differ significantly between those with or without severe hepatotoxicity (106 versus 126 ng/mL, p = 0.16). Pembrolizumab concentrations were higher in those with severe hepatotoxicity versus those without (25.6 versus 6.1 µg/mL, p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In this preliminary prospective study, sotorasib after PD-(L)1 blockade was associated with severe hepatotoxicity, especially in patients with a short interval between treatments, prior immune-related hepatitis and higher anti-PD-1 plasma concentrations. Our results suggest a minimum interval of 6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib to minimize the risk of hepatotoxicity. FUNDING: None.

High Protein Oral Nutritional Supplements Enable the Majority of Cancer Patients to Meet Protein Intake Recommendations during Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Parallel-Group Study.

ESPEN guidelines recommend a minimum protein intake of 1.0 g/kg body weight (BW) per day to maintain or restore lean body mass in patients with cancer. During anti-cancer treatment, optimal protein intake is difficult to achieve. We investigated whether a high-protein, low-volume oral nutritional supplement (ONS) supports patients in meeting recommendations. A multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group study was carried out in nine hospitals (five countries) between January 2019 and July 2021 in colorectal and lung cancer patients undergoing first-line systemic treatment with chemo(radio-) or immunotherapy. Subjects were randomised (2:1) to receive Fortimel Compact Protein® or standard care. Protein intake was assessed with a 3-day food diary (primary outcome). BW was a secondary outcome. Due to challenges in recruitment, the study was terminated prematurely with 42 patients randomised (intervention group (IG) 28; control group (CG) 14). At T1 and T2, protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (1.40 vs. 1.07 g/kg/day at T1, p = 0.008; 1.32 vs. 0.94 g/kg/day at T2, p = 0.002). At baseline, only 65% (IG) and 45% (CG) of patients met ESPEN minimum protein intake recommendations. However, at T1 and T2 in the IG, a higher proportion of patients met recommendations than in the CG (88% vs. 55% and 40%). No statistically significant difference between study groups was observed for BW. Mean compliance to the ONS was 73.4%. A high-protein, low-volume ONS consumed twice daily enables the majority of patients to reach minimal ESPEN protein recommendations.