Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for the Treatment of Stage I-IIIA Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with surgically resectable stage I-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multi-institutional phase II trial of neoadjuvant osimertinib for patients with surgically resectable stage I-IIIA (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] V7) EGFR-mutated (L858R or exon 19 deletion) NSCLC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03433469). Patients received osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily for up to two 28-day cycles before surgical resection. The primary end point was major pathological response (MPR) rate. Secondary safety and efficacy end points were also assessed. Exploratory end points included pretreatment and post-treatment tumor mutation profiling. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were enrolled and treated with neoadjuvant osimertinib for a median 56 days before surgical resection. Twenty-four (89%) patients underwent subsequent surgery; three (11%) patients were converted to definitive chemoradiotherapy. The MPR rate was 14.8% (95% CI, 4.2 to 33.7). No pathological complete responses were observed. The ORR was 52%, and the median DFS was 40.9 months. One treatment-related serious adverse event (AE) occurred (3.7%). No patients were unable to undergo surgical resection or had surgery delayed because of an AE. The most common co-occurring tumor genomic alterations were in TP53 (42%) and RBM10 (21%). CONCLUSION: Treatment with neoadjuvant osimertinib in surgically resectable (stage IA-IIIA, AJCC V7) EGFR-mutated NSCLC did not meet its primary end point for MPR rate. However, neoadjuvant osimertinib did not lead to unanticipated AEs, surgical delays, nor result in a significant unresectability rate.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 4.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable molecular biomarkers.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Mesothelioma: Pleural, Version 1.2024.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleura and other sites, and is estimated to occur in approximately 3,500 people in the United States annually. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type and represents approximately 85% of these cases. The NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pleural mesothelioma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural, including revised guidance on disease classification and systemic therapy options.

The Efficacy and Safety of Treating Acquired MET Resistance Through Combinations of Parent and MET Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Oncogene-Driven NSCLC.

Introduction: Acquired MET gene amplification, MET exon 14 skip mutations, or MET fusions can emerge as resistance mechanisms to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with lung cancer. The efficacy and safety of combining MET TKIs (such as crizotinib, capmatinib, or tepotinib) with parent TKIs to target acquired MET resistance are not well characterized. Methods: Multi-institutional retrospective chart review identified 83 patients with metastatic oncogene-driven NSCLC that were separated into the following two pairwise matched cohorts: (1) MET cohort (n = 41)-patients with acquired MET resistance continuing their parent TKI with a MET TKI added or (2) Chemotherapy cohort (n = 42)-patients without any actionable resistance continuing their parent TKI with a platinum-pemetrexed added. Clinicopathologic features, radiographic response (by means of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1), survival outcomes, adverse events (AEs) (by means of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0), and genomic data were collected. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Multivariate modeling adjusted for lines of therapy, brain metastases, TP53 mutations, and oligometastatic disease. Results: Within the MET cohort, median age was 56 years (range: 36-83 y). Most patients were never smokers (28 of 41, 68.3%). Baseline brain metastases were common (21 of 41, 51%). The most common oncogenes in the MET cohort were EGFR (30 of 41, 73.2%), ALK (seven of 41, 17.1%), and ROS1 (two of 41, 4.9%). Co-occurring TP53 mutations (32 of 41, 78%) were frequent. Acquired MET alterations included MET gene amplification (37 of 41, 90%), MET exon 14 mutations (two of 41, 5%), and MET gene fusions (two of 41, 5%). After multivariate adjustment, the objective response rate (ORR) was higher in the MET cohort versus the chemotherapy cohort (ORR: 69.2% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Within the MET cohort, MET gene copy number (≥10 versus 6-10) did not affect radiographic response (54.5% versus 68.4%, p = 0.698). There was no difference in ORR on the basis of MET TKI used (F [2, 36] = 0.021, p = 0.978). There was no difference in progression-free survival (5 versus 6 mo; hazard ratio = 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-1.23, p = 0.18) or overall survival (13 versus 11 mo; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.42-1.35, p = 0.34) between the MET and chemotherapy cohorts. In the MET cohort, dose reductions for MET TKI-related toxicities were common (17 of 41, 41.4%) but less frequent for parent TKIs (two of 41, 5%). Grade 3 AEs were not significant between crizotinib, capmatinib, and tepotinib (p = 0.3). The discontinuation rate of MET TKIs was 17% with no significant differences between MET TKIs (p = 0.315). Among pre- and post-treatment biopsies (n = 17) in the MET cohort, the most common next-generation sequencing findings were loss of MET gene amplification (15 of 17, 88.2%), MET on-target mutations (seven of 17, 41.2%), new Ras-Raf-MAPK alterations (three of 17, 17.6%), and EGFR gene amplification (two of 17, 11.7%). Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of combining MET TKIs (crizotinib, capmatinib, or tepotinib) with parent TKIs for acquired MET resistance are efficacious. Radiographic response and AEs did not differ significantly on the basis of the underlying MET TKI used. Loss of MET gene amplification, development of MET on-target mutations, Ras-Raf-MAPK alterations, and EGFR gene amplification were molecular patterns found on progression with dual parent and MET TKI combinations.