Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Biomarker expression and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression may help identify patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who would benefit from immunotherapy. We assessed PD-L1 expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and V-Ki-Ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations in NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Data for stage IB/II/IIIA NSCLC patients (diagnosed: 2001-2012) were retrieved from Danish population-based registries. Tumor tissue samples were tested for PD-L1 expression using VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay in tumor cells (TC) at ≥25% cutoff and immune cells (IC) at ≥1% and ≥25% cutoffs. KRAS and EGFR mutations were tested using PCR-based assays. Follow-up began 120 days after diagnosis until death/emigration/January 1, 2015, whichever came first. Using Cox proportional hazard regression, hazard ratios (HRs) were computed for overall survival (OS) for each biomarker, adjusting for age, sex, histology, comorbidities, and tissue specimen age. RESULTS: Among 391 patients identified, 40.4% had stage IIIA disease, 49.9% stage II, and 8.7% stage IB. PD-L1-TC was observed in 38% of patients, EGFR mutations in 4%, and KRAS mutations in 29%. KRAS mutations were more frequent among patients with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (37% versus 24%). OS was not associated with PD-L1 TC≥25% versus TC<25% (stage II: adjusted HR = 1.15 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-2.01]; stage IIIA: 0.72 [0.44-1.19]). No significant association was observed with OS and PD-L1-IC ≥1% and ≥25%. EGFR and KRAS mutations were not associated with a prognostic impact. CONCLUSION: A prognostic impact for NSCLC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with PD-L1 expression, or with EGFR and KRAS mutations.

Association between Health-Related Quality of Life and Completion of First-Line Treatment among Lung Cancer Patients.

Experts recommend assessing lung cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the diagnostic evaluation. We investigated the association between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment among lung cancer patients in a prospective cohort study. Clinical information on lung cancer patients was obtained from medical records, and information on quality of life and lung cancer-related symptoms was obtained through questionnaires at time of diagnosis. We used directed acyclic graphs to identify potential confounders and mediators between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment. The association between functioning levels and symptoms and completion of first-line oncological treatment was estimated as odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, in logistic regression models. In all, 137 patients (52% men, mean age: 69 years) participated, out of 216 invited. Patients who reported reduced functioning had significantly increased ORs for not completing first-line treatment: poor physical function (OR 4.44), role function (OR 6.09), emotional function (OR 5.86), and social function (OR 3.13). Patients with fatigue (OR 7.55), pain (OR 6.07), appetite loss (OR 4.66), and financial difficulties (OR 17.23) had significantly increased ORs for not completing the first-line treatment. Reduced functioning and presence of symptoms were associated with not completing first-line treatment. An assessment of HRQOL could potentially aid the diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning for lung cancer patients.

Osimertinib in non-small cell lung cancer with uncommon EGFR-mutations: a post-hoc subgroup analysis with pooled data from two phase II clinical trials.

Background: Osimertinib is standard of care for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The efficacy of the drug in patients with mutations other than the common deletion in exon 19 and L858R in exon 21 is largely unknown. Methods: We identified patients with uncommon EGFR-mutations from two prospective clinical phase II, single-arm studies for previously treated patients and untreated patients, respectively, and pooled data for this analysis. All patients received treatment with osimertinib 80 mg daily until radiological progression or death. The primary endpoint of both trials was objective response rate (ORR), with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and intracranial efficacy as key secondary endpoints. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) was analysed before and two weeks after treatment initiation in the first line cohort. Results: Of 299 enrolled patients in the two trials, 21 patients with uncommon mutations were identified; 12 patients had a single mutation (G719X or L861Q), one patient had L861Q and an exon 20 insertion, and 8 patients had compound mutations with G719X and either L861Q or S768I. Three of the 10 pretreated patients had the T790M resistance mutation. ORR was 47.6% and disease control rate (DCR) 85.7%. The median duration of response (DoR) was 7.9 months. Among 11 patients treated with osimertinib in first line, ORR was 63.6% vs. 30.0% of 10 previously treated patients. The median PFS was 5.5 months in both groups. Patients with G719X-compound mutations had a higher response rate (62.5% vs. 38.5%), a longer median PFS (13.7 vs. 3.5 months) and median OS (29.3 vs. 7.5 months) than patients with other mutations. Most first line treated patients (81.8%) displayed a reduction in ctDNA after two weeks of treatment. Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrates activity in patients with uncommon EGFR-mutations, and especially for G719X-compound mutations.

Impact of MET status on treatment outcomes in papillary renal cell carcinoma: A pooled analysis of historical data.

BACKGROUND: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) represents 15% of RCCs but has no indicated therapies, with limited biomarker-based data to inform targeted treatment. MET alterations may be key; > 80% of PRCC tumours show MET upregulation. The objective of this study was to assess MET status in PRCC and its impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic PRCC from three international registries. MET status was determined retrospectively by next generation sequencing (NGS) of archival tissue. MET-driven was defined as MET and/or hepatocyte growth factor amplification, chromosome 7 gain, and/or MET kinase domain mutations. Objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by MET status using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of 308 patients, 305 received first-line treatment; most commonly sunitinib (n = 208; 68%), then everolimus (n = 40; 13%). Of 179 patients with valid NGS results, 38% had MET-driven and 49% MET-independent tumours (13% unevaluable). In the MET-driven versus MET-independent subgroups, respectively, of sunitinib-treated patients, median PFS was numerically longer, though not statistically significantly; PFS: 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4-13.2) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.3-7.4), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.41-1.08. There was no difference between the OS of each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: MET-driven PRCC may respond to targeted agents. However, the presence of MET alterations did not appear to be predictive for outcomes in response to current therapies, which are not biomarker-driven, compared with MET-independent tumours.

Intracranial effect of osimertinib in relapsed EGFR-mutated T790M-positive and -negative non-small cell lung cancer patients: results from a phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is effective for relapsed T790M-positive patients with brain metastases. The high brain permeability suggests that also such patients without T790M could benefit. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of osimertinib on brain metastases in both T790M-positive and -negative patients. METHODS: The TREM-study was an investigator-initiated phase II, single-arm, multi-institutional clinical trial conducted in Northern Europe. Patients with resistance to prior EGFR-TKIs received osimertinib until radiological progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Baseline brain scans were performed in patients with known or suspected brain metastases and repeated every 8-12 weeks. We assessed intracranial efficacy in patients with baseline brain metastases. RESULTS: Brain metastases were detected in 48/199 patients at baseline. Of these, 63% were T790M-positive, 27% -negative and 10% had unknown T790M-status. The majority (73%) of the patients had received prior whole brain radiotherapy and additionally 8% had received stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Brain scans were available for review for 42 patients. The intracranial progression free survival was 39.7 versus 3.5 months for T790M + and T790M- patients, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall intracranial disease control rate (iDCR) was 81%, and for T790M + and T790M- patients the DCR was 89% versus 55%, respectively. The estimated risk of CNS progression was 0.8% at 6 months and 6% at 12 months for T790M-positive patients, and 14% and 17% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for the T790M-negative. CONCLUSION: This subgroup analysis confirms CNS efficacy of osimertinib in patients with the T790M resistance mutation, while other treatment options should be considered for EGFR-TKI relapsed T790M-negative patients with brain metastases.

Detection and characterization of lung cancer using cell-free DNA fragmentomes.

Non-invasive approaches for cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assessment provide an opportunity for cancer detection and intervention. Here, we use a machine learning model for detecting tumor-derived cfDNA through genome-wide analyses of cfDNA fragmentation in a prospective study of 365 individuals at risk for lung cancer. We validate the cancer detection model using an independent cohort of 385 non-cancer individuals and 46 lung cancer patients. Combining fragmentation features, clinical risk factors, and CEA levels, followed by CT imaging, detected 94% of patients with cancer across stages and subtypes, including 91% of stage I/II and 96% of stage III/IV, at 80% specificity. Genome-wide fragmentation profiles across ~13,000 ASCL1 transcription factor binding sites distinguished individuals with small cell lung cancer from those with non-small cell lung cancer with high accuracy (AUC = 0.98). A higher fragmentation score represented an independent prognostic indicator of survival. This approach provides a facile avenue for non-invasive detection of lung cancer.

PD-L1 expression, EGFR and KRAS mutations and survival among stage III unresected non-small cell lung cancer patients: a Danish cohort study.

Programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, KRAS (KRASm) and EGFR (EGFRm) mutations may influence non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prognosis. We aimed to evaluate PD-L1 expression, KRASm, and EGFRm and survival among stage III unresected NSCLC patients. Using Danish registries, we collected data on stage III unresected NSCLC patients diagnosed 2001-2012 and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from pathology archives. We assessed PD-L1 expression in tumors and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) by immunohistochemistry ([Formula: see text] 1% threshold for PD-L1+). We genotyped KRAS and EGFR. Follow-up extended from 120 days post-diagnosis to death, emigration, or 31/12/2014. We computed median survival using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression associating the biomarkers with death, adjusting for confounders. Among 305 patients, 48% had adenocarcinoma; 38% squamous cell carcinoma. Forty-nine percent had PD-L1+ tumors-51% stage IIIA and 26% KRASm. Few (2%) patients had EGFRm. Median survival in months was 14.7 (95% CI = 11.8-17.9) and 13.4 (95% CI = 9.5-16.3) in PD-L1+ and PD-L1- tumors, respectively. KRASm was not associated with death (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.74-1.51 versus wildtype). PD-L1+ tumors yielded a HR = 0.83 (95% CI = 0.63-1.10); PD-L1+ ICs a HR = 0.51 (95% CI = 0.39-0.68). Tumor expression of PD-L1 did not influence survival. PD-L1+ ICs may confer survival benefit in stage III unresected NSCLC patients.

Programmed cell death ligand-1 expression and survival in a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line through third-line therapy in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs) or immune cells (ICs) may be used as a prognostic marker for survival in patients with NSCLC. We characterized PD-L1 expression on TCs or ICs in a patient cohort with NSCLC to determine associations between PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS), according to EGFR and KRAS mutation status. METHODS: Danish patients aged >18 years diagnosed with NSCLC before 2014 on first- (N = 491), second- (N = 368), or third-line (N = 498) therapy were included. Data were extracted from population-based medical registries. Tumor samples from pathology archives were tested for biomarkers. High PD-L1 expression was defined as expression on ≥25 % of TCs or ICs based on first diagnostic biopsy or surgical resection. KRAS and EGFR mutation status were tested using PCR-based assays. Cox regression analysis was used to compute adjusted HRs and associated 95 % CIs. RESULTS: PD-L1 TC and IC ≥ 25 % were observed in 24.3 %-31.0 % and 11.7-14.7 % of patients, respectively. EGFR and KRAS mutations were detected in 4.7 %-8.8 % and 26.5 %-30.7 % of patients, respectively. PD-L1 TC ≥ 25 % was not associated with survival advantage in first- (HR = 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.75-1.22), second- (1.08, 0.81-1.42), or third-line (0.94, 0.74-1.20) therapy. PD-L1 IC ≥ 25 % was associated with survival advantage in second-line (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.36-0.86) and third-line (0.69, 0.49-0.97) but not first-line (1.00, 0.70-1.41) therapy. CONCLUSION: No association was observed between PD-L1 TC ≥ 25 % and OS in any therapy line. PD-L1 IC ≥ 25 % may confer survival benefit among some patients who reach second-line therapy.

Savolitinib ± Osimertinib in Japanese Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies or EGFRm NSCLC: Ph1b TATTON Part C.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary data suggest that combining savolitinib, a potent and highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), with osimertinib, a third-generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor-TKI (EGFR-TKI), may overcome MET-based resistance to EGFR-TKIs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and tolerability of savolitinib in Japanese patients with advanced solid malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Part C of the phase Ib, multi-arm, open-label, multicenter TATTON study, two cohorts of Japanese adult patients were evaluated across six study centers in Japan. Patients with advanced solid malignancies received oral savolitinib monotherapy 400 mg once daily (qd), escalating to 600 mg; patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) who progressed on prior EGFR-TKI received oral osimertinib 80 mg+savolitinib 300/400/600 mg qd combination therapy. Primary endpoints: safety/tolerability of savolitinib±osimertinib, and maximum tolerated dose(s) (MTD) definition. RESULTS: Seventeen patients received monotherapy; 12 received combination. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): with monotherapy, 400 mg, none reported; 600 mg, n = 3/9 evaluable patients (33%) reported DLTs (grade 3 and 4 alanine aminotransferase and aspartate transaminase increased, and grade 4 drug-induced liver injury). With combination: 400 mg, 1/6 (17%) reported DLTs (grade 2 fatigue, nausea, and myalgia); 300 mg, none reported; 600 mg, 3/4 (75%) reported DLTs (grade 2 pyrexia, grade 3 skin reaction, and anaphylactic shock). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 41% of patients receiving monotherapy and 33% receiving combination. TATTON is no longer recruiting patients. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of savolitinib was 400 mg qd in both cohorts. Data demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for savolitinib alone, or with osimertinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02143466; 21 May 2014.

For patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, like osimertinib, are the standard treatment. However, for most patients, these treatments eventually stop working, as tumors develop resistance to them. Early studies suggest that combining osimertinib with savolitinib can overcome this resistance. We report Part C of the four-part TATTON study, in which two groups of Japanese adult patients received treatment. One group received savolitinib 400 mg once daily, then 600 mg. The other group received osimertinib 80 mg with savolitinib 300/400/600 mg once daily. The main objective of the study was to determine the maximum dose of savolitinib that patients could receive (maximum tolerated dose) and to monitor the safety of the combination. Overall, 17 patients received savolitinib alone and 12 received the combination. The maximum tolerated dose of savolitinib was found to be 400 mg once daily in both groups of patients. The data demonstrated that savolitinib had acceptable safety outcomes either alone, or in combination with osimertinib.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Positive-Controlled, Three-Way Crossover Study in Healthy Participants to Investigate the Effect of Savolitinib on the QTc Interval.

Savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib) is an oral, bioavailable, selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This randomized, double-blind, 3-way, crossover phase 1 study of savolitinib versus moxifloxacin (positive control) and placebo-evaluated effects on the QT interval after a single savolitinib dose. Healthy non-Japanese men were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment sequences, receiving single doses of savolitinib 600 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and placebo. The primary end point was time-matched, placebo-adjusted change from baseline in the QT interval corrected for the time between corresponding points on 2 consecutive R waves on electrocardiogram (RR) by the Fridericia formula (ΔΔQTcF). Secondary end points included 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) variables, pharmacokinetics, and safety. All 3 treatment periods were completed by 44 of 45 participants (98%). Baseline demographics were balanced across treatment groups. After a single savolitinib 600-mg dose, the highest least-squares mean ΔΔQTcF of 12 milliseconds was observed 5 hours postdose. Upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval for ΔΔQTcF exceeded 10 milliseconds (the prespecified International Council for Harmonisation limit) 3-6 hours postsavolitinib but otherwise remained less than the threshold. Savolitinib showed no additional effect on PR, QRS, QT, or RR intervals. A positive ΔΔQTcF signal from the moxifloxacin group confirmed study validity. Savolitinib was well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events. In this thorough QT/QTc study, QTcF prolongation was observed with a single savolitinib 600-mg dose. ECG monitoring will be implemented in ongoing and future studies of savolitinib to assess the clinical relevance of the observed QT changes from this study.

A phase Ib study of the highly selective MET-TKI savolitinib plus gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutated, MET-amplified advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are recommended first-line treatments in EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, acquired resistance (e.g. MET amplification) is frequently observed. Savolitinib (volitinib, HMPL-504, AZD6094) is an oral, potent, and highly selective MET-TKI. In this phase Ib, open-label, multicenter study, we enrolled Chinese patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC, whose disease progressed following prior EGFR-TKI treatment. In the safety run-in, patients received savolitinib 600 or 800 mg plus gefitinib 250 mg orally once daily, and dose-limiting toxicities were recorded. In the expansion phase, patients with MET amplification received savolitinib plus gefitinib. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary endpoints included antitumor activity. Thirteen patients were enrolled in the safety phase (median age 52 years, 46% female) and 51 enrolled in the expansion phase (median age 61 years, 67% female). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in either dose group during the safety run-in. Adverse events of grade ≥ 3 in the safety run-in and expansion phases (n = 57) were reported in 21 (37%) patients. The most frequently reported adverse events (all grades) were: vomiting (n = 26, 46%), nausea (n = 23, 40%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (n = 22, 39%). Of four deaths, none were treatment-related. The objective response rates in EGFR T790M-negative, -positive, and -unknown patients were 52% (12/23), 9% (2/23), and 40% (2/5), respectively. Savolitinib 600 mg plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated promising antitumor activity in EGFRm, MET-amplified advanced NSCLC patients who had disease progression on EGFR-TKIs. NCT02374645, Date of registration: March 2nd 2015.

Efficacy of Savolitinib vs Sunitinib in Patients With MET-Driven Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: The SAVOIR Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC. Because some cases of PRCC are MET-driven, MET inhibition could be a targeted treatment approach. In previous studies, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in this patient group. Objective: To determine whether savolitinib is a better treatment option for this patient population, vs standard of care, sunitinib. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SAVOIR phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial was a multicenter study carried out in 32 centers in 7 countries between July 2017 and the data cutoff in August 2019. Overall, 360 to 450 patients were to be screened to randomize approximately 180 patients. Patients were adults with MET-driven (centrally confirmed), metastatic PRCC, with 1 or more measurable lesions. Exclusion criteria included prior receipt of sunitinib or MET inhibitor treatment. Overall, 254 patients were screened. Interventions: Patients received 600 mg of savolitinib orally once daily (qd), or 50 mg of sunitinib orally qd for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS, assessed by investigator and confirmed by blinded independent central review). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety/tolerability. Results: At data cutoff, 60 patients were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27); most patients had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib, 30 [91%]; sunitinib, 26 [96%]) and no prior therapy (savolitinib, 28 [85%]; sunitinib, 25 [93%]). For savolitinib and sunitinib, 4 (12%) and 10 (37%) patients were women, and the median (range) age was 60 (23-78) and 65 (31-77) years, respectively. Following availability of external data on PFS with sunitinib in patients with MET-driven disease, study enrollment was closed. Progression-free survival, OS, and ORR were numerically greater with savolitinib vs sunitinib. Median PFS was not statistically different between the 2 groups: 7.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-not calculated) for savolitinib and 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.37-1.36; P = .31). For savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were reported in 14 (42%) and 22 (81%) of patients and AE-related dose modifications in 10 (30%) and 20 (74%). After discontinuation, 12 (36%) and 5 (19%) of patients on savolitinib and sunitinib respectively, received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Although patient numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy vs sunitinib, with fewer grade 3 or higher AEs and dose modifications. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03091192.

Protein-altering germline mutations implicate novel genes related to lung cancer development.

Few germline mutations are known to affect lung cancer risk. We performed analyses of rare variants from 39,146 individuals of European ancestry and investigated gene expression levels in 7,773 samples. We find a large-effect association with an ATM L2307F (rs56009889) mutation in adenocarcinoma for discovery (adjusted Odds Ratio = 8.82, P = 1.18 × 10-15) and replication (adjusted OR = 2.93, P = 2.22 × 10-3) that is more pronounced in females (adjusted OR = 6.81 and 3.19 and for discovery and replication). We observe an excess loss of heterozygosity in lung tumors among ATM L2307F allele carriers. L2307F is more frequent (4%) among Ashkenazi Jewish populations. We also observe an association in discovery (adjusted OR = 2.61, P = 7.98 × 10-22) and replication datasets (adjusted OR = 1.55, P = 0.06) with a loss-of-function mutation, Q4X (rs150665432) of an uncharacterized gene, KIAA0930. Our findings implicate germline genetic variants in ATM with lung cancer susceptibility and suggest KIAA0930 as a novel candidate gene for lung cancer risk.

Optimizing COPD treatment in patients with lung- or head and neck cancer does not improve quality of life - a randomized, pilot, clinical trial.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in patients with lung and head- and neck cancer. Patients with lung cancer who also suffer from COPD have a worse prognosis than patients with lung cancer and no COPD. It has previously been shown that diagnosis and treatment of concomitant COPD in patients with newly diagnosed lung- or head and neck cancer need optimization. In this randomized, controlled trial we aimed to assess if intervention directed at improving treatment for COPD in these patients improved health-related quality of life (QoL). Methods: During 2014, we randomized 114 patients referred for oncological treatment at a large university hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark, to either usual care or intervention regarding concomitant COPD. The intervention consisted of two visits in an out-patient clinic established at the oncological department and staffed with a pulmonary physician. At baseline, week 13 and week 25, all patients filled out the cancer- and COPD-specific QoL questionnaires CAT and EORTC, respectively. The primary outcome was change in CAT-score between control- and intervention group. The secondary outcome was change in EORTC. Results: There was no change in CAT-score by week 13 or 25 between the groups. For the EORTC there was a statistically significant improvement only in the fatigue domain at week 13 (p = 0.03), but not at week 25. There was a trend towards less dyspnea in the intervention group at week 13, measured by EORTC (p = 0.07). Mortality by week 25 was similar in both groups. Conclusion: In this population of severely ill cancer patients, we did not find that this intervention, focusing on inhaled COPD medication, for the management of COPD had any convincing positive impact on the patients' perceived quality of life compared with usual care. Further studies are needed.

Osimertinib in T790M-positive and -negative patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (the TREM-study).

OBJECTIVES: In non-small cell lung cancer patients with acquired resistance to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib is approved in the presence of the T790 M resistance mutation. We assessed the efficacy of osimertinib in both T790M-positive and T790M-negative patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The TREM-study is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial conducted in five Northern European countries. Patients with progression on at least one previous EGFR-TKI were assigned to treatment with 80 mg of osimertinib daily until radiological progression or death. Patients were included regardless of the presence of T790 M. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Of 199 included patients, 120 (60 %) were T790M-positive, 52 (26 %) were T790M-negative and 27 (14 %) had unknown T790M-status. 24 % had brain metastases and 15 % had an ECOG performance status of 2. Overall ORR was 48 % (95 % CI, 41 %-55 %), 60 % (51 %-69 %) for T790M-positive patients and 28 % (15 %-41 %) for T790M-negative patients, p < 0.001. ORR for patients with co-occurring del19 vs L858R was 61 % vs 32 %, p = 0.001. Duration of response was similar between the T790M-positive and -negative groups (11.8 vs 10.7 months, p = 0.229). Overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.9 months (95 % CI, 7.4-10.5), and 10.8 vs 5.1 months for T790M-positive vs -negative patients (HR 0.62, p = 0.007). Median overall survival (OS) was 17.9 months (95 % CI, 14.4-21.3). For T790M-positive vs -negative median OS was 22.5 vs 13.4 months, (HR 0.55, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the efficacy of osimertinib for T790M-positive patients. There was also clinically significant activity of osimertinib in a proportion of T790M-negative patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02504346).

Osimertinib plus savolitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive, MET-amplified, non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: interim results from a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus MET TKIs are a possible treatment for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancers with MET-driven acquired resistance. Phase 1 safety data of savolitinib (also known as AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a potent, selective MET TKI, plus osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, have provided recommended doses for study. Here, we report the assessment of osimertinib plus savolitinib in two global expansion cohorts of the TATTON study. METHODS: In this multi-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic, MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who had progressed on EGFR TKIs. We considered two expansion cohorts: parts B and D. Part B consisted of three cohorts of patients: those who had been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI (B1) and those who had not been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI who were either Thr790Met negative (B2) or Thr790Met positive (B3). In part B, patients received oral osimertinib 80 mg and savolitinib 600 mg daily; after a protocol amendment (March 12, 2018), patients who weighed no more than 55 kg received a 300 mg dose of savolitinib. Part D enrolled patients who had not previously received a third-generation EGFR TKI and were Thr790Met negative; these patients received osimertinib 80 mg plus savolitinib 300 mg. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, which were assessed in all dosed patients. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in all dosed patients and all patients with centrally confirmed MET amplification. Here, we present an interim analysis with data cutoff on March 29, 2019. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02143466. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2015, and Feb 14, 2019, we enrolled 144 patients into part B and 42 patients into part D. In part B, 138 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 600 mg (n=130) or 300 mg (n=8). In part D, 42 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 300 mg. 79 (57%) of 138 patients in part B and 16 (38%) of 42 patients in part D had adverse events of grade 3 or worse. 115 (83%) patients in part B and 25 (60%) patients in part D had adverse events possibly related to savolitinib and serious adverse events were reported in 62 (45%) patients in part B and 11 (26%) patients in part D; two adverse events leading to death (acute renal failure and death, cause unknown) were possibly related to treatment in part B. Objective partial responses were observed in 66 (48%; 95% CI 39-56) patients in part B and 23 (64%; 46-79) in part D. INTERPRETATION: The combination of osimertinib and savolitinib has acceptable risk-benefit profile and encouraging antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive, advanced NSCLC, who had disease progression on a previous EGFR TKI. This combination might be a potential treatment option for patients with MET-driven resistance to EGFR TKIs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

AHRR (cg05575921) methylation extent of leukocyte DNA and lung cancer survival.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown that AHRR (cg05575921) hypomethylation may be a marker of smoking, lung cancer risk and potentially lung cancer survival (in some lung cancer subtypes). It is unknown if AHRR (cg05575921) hypomethylation is associated with reduced survival among lung cancer patients. METHODS: In bisulfite treated leukocyte DNA from 465 lung cancer patients from the Copenhagen prospective lung cancer study, we measured AHRR (cg05575921) methylation. 380 died during max follow-up of 4.4 years. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze survival as a function of AHRR (cg05575921) methylation. RESULTS: We observed the expected inverse correlation between cumulative smoking and AHRR methylation, as methylation (%) decreased (Coefficient -0.03; 95% confidence interval, -0.04- -0.02, p = 8.6x10-15) for every pack-year. Cumulative smoking > 60 pack-years was associated with reduced survival (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval 1.48; 1.05-2.09), however, AHRR (cg05575921) methylation was not associated with survival when adjusted for sex, body mass index, smoking status, ethnicity, performance status, TNM Classification, and histology type of lung cancer. CONCLUSION: AHRR (cg05575921) methylation is linked to smoking but does not provide independent prognostic information in lung cancer patients.

[Medical treatment of lung cancer].

Lung cancer causes most cancer-related deaths in the western world. In Denmark, over 4,700 cases of lung cancer are diagnosed annually. The medical treatment of lung cancer has undergone a significant development over the past 20 years. Adjuvant chemotherapy is given to some patients after surgery, and patients with inoperable, non-metastatic disease can be treated with combinations of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The large group of patients with metastatic disease can be offered different forms of medical treatment as chemotherapy, targeted treatment or immunotherapy.