Neoadjuvant Targeted Therapy in Resectable NSCLC: Current and Future Perspectives.

The standard of care (SoC) for medically operable patients with early-stage (stages I-IIIB) NSCLC is surgery combined with (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with stages II to IIIB disease and some stage IB or, rarely, chemoradiation (stage III disease with mediastinal lymph node metastases). Despite these treatments, metastatic recurrence is common and associated with poor survival, highlighting the need for systemic therapies that are more effective than the current SoC. After the success of targeted therapy (TT) in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring oncogenic drivers, these agents are being investigated for the perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC. Adjuvant osimertinib is the only TT approved for use in the early-stage setting, and there are no approved neoadjuvant TTs. We discuss the importance of comprehensive biomarker testing at diagnosis to identify individuals who may benefit from neoadjuvant targeted treatments and review emerging data from neoadjuvant TT trials. We also address the potential challenges for establishing neoadjuvant TTs as SoC in the early-stage setting, including the identification and validation of early response markers to guide care and accelerate drug development, and discuss safety considerations in the perioperative setting. Initial data indicate that neoadjuvant TTs are effective and well tolerated in patients with EGFR- or ALK-positive early-stage NSCLC. Data from ongoing trials will determine whether neoadjuvant targeted agents will become a new SoC for individuals with oncogene-addicted resectable NSCLC.

Association of Immune-Related Adverse Events With Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Pooled Analyses of the Phase 3 IMpower130, IMpower132, and IMpower150 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) arising from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) cancer therapy may potentially predict improved outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association between irAEs and atezolizumab efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using pooled data from 3 phase 3 ICI studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: IMpower130, IMpower132, and IMpower150 were phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of chemoimmunotherapy combinations involving atezolizumab. Participants were chemotherapy-naive adults with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC. These post hoc analyses were conducted during February 2022. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive atezolizumab with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel, or chemotherapy alone (IMpower130); 1:1 to receive atezolizumab with carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed, or chemotherapy alone (IMpower132); and 1:1:1 to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, atezolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, or bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (IMpower150). Main Outcomes and Measures: Pooled data from IMpower130 (cutoff: March 15, 2018), IMpower132 (cutoff: May 22, 2018), and IMpower150 (cutoff: September 13, 2019) were analyzed by treatment (atezolizumab-containing vs control), irAE status (with vs without), and highest irAE grade (1-2 vs 3-5). To account for immortal bias, a time-dependent Cox model and landmark analyses of irAE occurrence at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from baseline were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS). Results: Of 2503 randomized patients, 1577 were in the atezolizumab-containing arm and 926 were in the control arm. The mean (SD) age of patients was 63.1 (9.4) years and 63.0 (9.3) years, and 950 (60.2%) and 569 (61.4%) were male, respectively, in the atezolizumab arm and the control arm. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between patients with irAEs (atezolizumab, n = 753; control, n = 289) and without (atezolizumab, n = 824; control, n = 637). In the atezolizumab arm, OS HRs (95% CI) in patients with grade 1 to 2 irAEs and grade 3 to 5 irAEs (each vs those without irAEs) in the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month subgroups were 0.78 (0.65-0.94) and 1.25 (0.90-1.72), 0.74 (0.63-0.87) and 1.23 (0.93-1.64), 0.77 (0.65-0.90) and 1.1 (0.81-1.42), and 0.72 (0.59-0.89) and 0.87 (0.61-1.25), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials, longer OS was observed in patients with vs without mild to moderate irAEs in both arms and across landmarks. These findings further support the use of first-line atezolizumab-containing regimens for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02367781, NCT02657434, and NCT02366143.

The Timing, Trajectory, and Incidence of Immune-Related Adverse Events in NSCLC Treated With Atezolizumab.

Introduction: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors can have complicated clinical courses. We comprehensively evaluated the timing, trajectory, and incidence of both single and multiple irAEs for NSCLC treated with atezolizumab. Methods: Data were pooled from 2457 patients who participated in the IMpower130, IMpower132, and IMpower150 clinical trials investigating the use of atezolizumab in metastatic NSCLC as part of a chemoimmunotherapy regimen. Longitudinal irAE data with landmark analysis, time-to-onset, changes in grading severity, and occurrence of multiple events were summarized. Results: In general, 1557 patients were treated with atezolizumab and 900 patients were in the control groups. Median follow-up was 32.3 and 23.5 months, respectively. In the atezolizumab group, 753 patients (48.4%) experienced at least one irAE. In the control group, 289 patients (32.1%) experienced at least one nonimmune adverse event that was attributed to an irAE. In the atezolizumab group, the most common irAEs were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism. Furthermore, 13% of the patients experienced two irAEs and 4% experienced three irAEs. Within 5 months of treatment, the cumulative incidence for any irAE was 39.2%. Median time-to-onset varied from 1 to 10 months based on the specific irAE. Grade 1 to 2 irAEs increased in severity for 33% of the patients. Conclusions: We identified dynamic clinical patterns for irAEs in patients treated with atezolizumab, including variations in time-to-onset, incidence of multiple irAEs, and frequency of irAEs increasing in severity. These results can guide clinical management and future reporting of adverse events to enable comprehensive longitudinal analyses.

IMpower150 Final Exploratory Analyses for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Key NSCLC Patient Subgroups With EGFR Mutations or Metastases in the Liver or Brain.

INTRODUCTION: Final overall survival (OS) analyses are presented for EGFR mutations and liver or brain metastases subgroups in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143) evaluating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ABCP) or atezolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ACP) versus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (BCP). METHODS: Overall, 1202 patients (intention-to-treat population) with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized to ABCP, ACP, or BCP. Patients with treated, stable brain metastases were permitted. OS was evaluated in EGFR mutations and baseline liver metastases subgroups; rate and time to development of new brain metastases were evaluated in the intention-to-treat patients. RESULTS: At data cutoff (September 13, 2019; median follow-up, 39.3 mo), OS improvements were sustained with ABCP versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.14; previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]: HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46) and baseline liver metastases (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45-1.02) subgroups. ACP did not have survival benefit versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: HR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.57-1.74; previous TKI: HR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.68-2.22) or liver metastases (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68-1.51) subgroups. Overall, 100 patients (8.3%) developed new brain metastases. Although not formally evaluated, an improvement toward delayed time to development was found with ABCP versus BCP (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.39-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: This final exploratory analysis revealed OS benefits for ABCP versus BCP in patients with sensitizing EGFR mutations, including those with previous TKI failures, and with liver metastases, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The impact of ABCP on delaying the development of new brain lesions requires further investigation.

Oncogene-specific differences in tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 expression, and outcomes from immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients bearing targetable oncogene alterations typically derive limited benefit from immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), which has been attributed to low tumor mutation burden (TMB) and/or PD-L1 levels. We investigated oncogene-specific differences in these markers and clinical outcome. METHODS: Three cohorts of NSCLC patients with oncogene alterations (n=4189 total) were analyzed. Two clinical cohorts of advanced NSCLC patients treated with ICB monotherapy [MD Anderson (MDACC; n=172) and Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB; n=894 patients)] were analyzed for clinical outcome. The FMI biomarker cohort (n=4017) was used to assess the association of oncogene alterations with TMB and PD-L1 expression. RESULTS: High PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 ≥50%) rate was 19%-20% in classic EGFR, EGFR exon 20 and HER2-mutant tumors, and 34%-55% in tumors with ALK, BRAF V600E, ROS1, RET, or MET alterations. Compared with KRAS-mutant tumors, BRAF non-V600E group had higher TMB (9.6 vs KRAS 7.8 mutations/Mb, p=0.003), while all other oncogene groups had lower TMB (p<0.001). In the two clinical cohorts treated with ICB, molecular groups with EGFR, HER2, ALK, ROS1, RET, or MET alterations had short progression-free survival (PFS; 1.8-3.7 months), while BRAF V600E group was associated with greater clinical benefit from ICB (CGDB cohort: PFS 9.8 months vs KRAS 3.7 months, HR 0.66, p=0.099; MDACC cohort: response rate 62% vs KRAS 24%; PFS 7.4 vs KRAS 2.8 months, HR 0.36, p=0.026). KRAS G12C and non-G12C subgroups had similar clinical benefit from ICB in both cohorts. In a multivariable analysis, BRAF V600E mutation (HR 0.58, p=0.041), PD-L1 expression (HR 0.57, p=0.022), and high TMB (HR 0.66, p<0.001) were associated with longer PFS. CONCLUSIONS: High TMB and PD-L1 expression are predictive for benefit from ICB treatment in oncogene-driven NSCLCs. NSCLC harboring BRAF mutations demonstrated superior benefit from ICB that may be attributed to higher TMB and higher PD-L1 expression in these tumors. Meanwhile EGFR and HER2 mutations and ALK, ROS1, RET, and MET fusions define NSCLC subsets with minimal benefit from ICB despite high PD-L1 expression in NSCLC harboring oncogene fusions. These findings indicate a TMB/PD-L1-independent impact on sensitivity to ICB for certain oncogene alterations.

Pooled analysis of clinical outcome for EGFR TKI-treated patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) appear to gain particular benefit from treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) if their disease tests positive for EGFR activating mutations. Recently, several large, controlled, phase III studies have been published in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours. Given the increased patient dataset now available, a comprehensive literature search for EGFR TKIs or chemotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC was undertaken to update the results of a previously published pooled analysis. Pooling eligible progression-free survival (PFS) data from 27 erlotinib studies (n = 731), 54 gefitinib studies (n = 1802) and 20 chemotherapy studies (n = 984) provided median PFS values for each treatment. The pooled median PFS was: 12.4 months (95% accuracy intervals [AI] 11.6-13.4) for erlotinib-treated patients; 9.4 months (95% AI 9.0-9.8) for gefitinib-treated patients; and 5.6 months (95% AI 5.3-6.0) for chemotherapy. Both erlotinib and gefitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS than chemotherapy (permutation testing; P = 0.000 and P = 0.000, respectively). Data on more recent TKIs (afatinib, dacomitinib and icotinib) were insufficient at this time-point to carry out a pooled PFS analysis on these compounds. The results of this updated pooled analysis suggest a substantial clear PFS benefit of treating patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC with erlotinib or gefitinib compared with chemotherapy.

Evaluation of EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry using H-score and the magnification rule: re-analysis of the SATURN study.

INTRODUCTION: The phase III SATURN study demonstrated that first-line maintenance erlotinib extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) found no significant interaction between EGFR IHC status and PFS (p = 0.63) or OS (p = 0.52). The FLEX study of first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy demonstrated that EGFR IHC expression was predictive of improved OS with cetuximab when assessed by H-score with a magnification rule. This novel method was used to reassess samples from SATURN. METHODS: The H-score method assigned a score of 0-300 to each patient, based on the percentage of cells stained at different intensities viewed at various magnifications. The discriminatory threshold was set at 200, per the FLEX study, and existing samples were re-read and classed as low (H-score < 200) or high (≥200) EGFR expression. PFS and OS were re-analyzed based on these new classifications. RESULTS: In the overall and EGFR wild-type populations, erlotinib provided a consistent survival benefit versus placebo. Hazard ratios (HRs) in the overall population were similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative patients for median PFS (HR 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.86] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.93], respectively) and OS (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.62-1.05] and 0.80 [95% CI 0.64-1.01] for IHC-positive and IHC-negative, respectively). In the EGFR wild-type population, HRs were again similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative subpopulations for PFS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.51-0.95] and 0.84 [95% CI 0.63-1.12], respectively) and OS (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.55-1.10] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.55-1.05], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EGFR IHC does not have value as a marker to predict erlotinib benefit in the first-line maintenance setting for advanced NSCLC.

Intercalated combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib for patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (FASTACT-2): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The results of FASTACT, a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, showed that intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook FASTACT-2, a phase 3 study in a similar patient population. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive internet response system with minimisation algorithm (stratified by disease stage, tumour histology, smoking status, and chemotherapy regimen) to receive six cycles of gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, intravenously) plus platinum (carboplatin 5 × area under the curve or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, intravenously) with intercalated erlotinib (150 mg/day on days 15-28, orally; chemotherapy plus erlotinib) or placebo orally (chemotherapy plus placebo) every 4 weeks. With the exception of an independent group responsible for monitoring data and safety monitoring board, everyone outside the interactive internet response system company was masked to treatment allocation. Patients continued to receive erlotinib or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity or death, and all patients in the placebo group were offered second-line erlotinib at the time of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883779. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2009, to Sept 9, 2010, 451 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus erlotinib (n=226) or chemotherapy plus placebo (n=225). PFS was significantly prolonged with chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy plus placebo (median PFS 7·6 months [95% CI 7·2-8·3], vs 6·0 months [5·6-7·1], hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·47-0·69]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival for patients in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib and chemotherapy plus placebo groups was 18·3 months (16·3-20·8) and 15·2 months (12·7-17·5), respectively (HR 0·79 [0·64-0·99]; p=0·0420). Treatment benefit was noted only in patients with an activating EGFR gene mutation (median PFS 16·8 months [12·9-20·4] vs 6·9 months [5·3-7·6], HR 0·25 [0·16-0·39]; p<0·0001; median overall survival 31·4 months [22·2-undefined], vs 20·6 months [14·2-26·9], HR 0·48 [0·27-0·84]; p=0·0092). Serious adverse events were reported by 76 (34%) of 222 patients in the chemotherapy plus placebo group and 69 (31%) of 226 in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events were neutropenia (65 [29%] patients and 55 [25%], respectively), thrombocytopenia (32 [14%] and 31 [14%], respectively), and anaemia (26 [12%] and 21 [9%], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable first-line option for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation-positive disease or selected patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.