ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Guidelines advocate molecular profiling in the evaluation of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and support the use of plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based profiling for patients with insufficient tissue. Thorough prospective clinical validation studies of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based ctDNA assays are lacking. We report the multicentered prospective clinical validation of the InVision ctDNA assay in patients with advanced untreated NSCLC. METHODS: A total of 264 patients with untreated advanced NSCLC were prospectively recruited, and their plasma was analyzed using a ctDNA NGS assay for detection of genomic alterations in 36 commonly mutated genes. Tumor tissue was available in 178 patients for molecular profiling for comparison with plasma profiling. The remaining 86 patients were included to compare ctDNA profiles in patients with and without tissue for profiling. RESULTS: Concordance of InVisionFirst with matched tissue profiling was 97.8%, with 82.9% positive predictive value, 98.5% negative predictive value, 70.6% sensitivity, and 99.2% specificity. Considering specific alterations in eight genes that most influence patient management, the positive predictive value was 97.8%, with 97.1% negative predictive value, 73.9% sensitivity, and 99.8% specificity. Across the entire study, 48 patients with actionable alterations were identified by ctDNA testing compared with only 38 by tissue testing. ctDNA NGS reported either an actionable alteration or an alteration generally considered mutually exclusive for such actionable changes in 53% of patients. CONCLUSION: The liquid biopsy NGS assay demonstrated excellent concordance with tissue profiling in this multicenter, prospective, clinical validation study, with sensitivity and specificity equivalent to Food and Drug Administration-approved single-gene ctDNA assays. The use of plasma-based molecular profiling using NGS led to the detection of 26% more actionable alterations compared with standard-of-care tissue testing in this study.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.