Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: RET fusions are present in 1%-2% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, central nervous system-penetrant, selective RET inhibitor, previously demonstrated clinical activity in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC in the phase I/II ARROW study, including among treatment-naive patients. We report an updated analysis from the ARROW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase I/II study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later 0-1). Patients initiated pralsetinib at the recommended phase II dose of 400 mg once daily until disease progression, intolerance, consent withdrawal, or investigator's decision. The co-primary endpoints (phase II) were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review and safety. RESULTS: Between 17 March 2017 and 6 November 2020 (data cut-off), 281 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC were enrolled. The ORR was 72% [54/75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 60% to 82%] for treatment-naive patients and 59% (80/136; 95% CI 50% to 67%) for patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy (enrolment cut-off for efficacy analysis: 22 May 2020); median duration of response was not reached for treatment-naive patients and 22.3 months for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Tumour shrinkage was observed in all treatment-naive patients and in 97% of patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy; median progression-free survival was 13.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. In patients with measurable intracranial metastases, the intracranial response rate was 70% (7/10; 95% CI 35% to 93%); all had received prior systemic treatment. In treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who initiated pralsetinib by the data cut-off (n = 116), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (10%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (9%), and lymphopenia (9%). Overall, 7% (20/281) discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pralsetinib treatment produced robust efficacy and was generally well tolerated in treatment-naive patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Results from the confirmatory phase III AcceleRET Lung study (NCT04222972) of pralsetinib versus standard of care in the first-line setting are pending.

Safety and activity of alectinib plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I/II study.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib, a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is highly effective in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a standard first-line therapy. New strategies are needed, however, to delay resistance. We conducted a phase I/II study to assess the safety and efficacy of combining alectinib with bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. The phase I portion employed a dose de-escalation strategy with alectinib and bevacizumab starting at the individual standard doses. The primary objective was to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). In phase II, the primary objective was to evaluate the safety of the combination at the RP2D; the secondary objective was to determine extracranial and intracranial efficacy. RESULTS: Eleven patients were enrolled between September 2015 and February 2020. Most patients (82%) had baseline brain metastases. Six patients (55%) were treatment-naive; five (46%) had received prior ALK TKIs (crizotinib, n = 3; ceritinib, n = 1; crizotinib then brigatinib, n = 1). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. RP2D was determined as alectinib 600 mg orally twice daily plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Three patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events: pneumonitis related to alectinib, proteinuria related to bevacizumab, and hypertension related to bevacizumab. Treatment-related intracranial hemorrhage was not observed. Six (100%) of six treatment-naive patients and three (60%) of five ALK TKI-pretreated patients had objective responses; median progression-free survival was not reached (95% confidence interval, 9.0 months-not reached) and 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 4.3 months-not reached), respectively. Intracranial responses occurred in four (100%) of four treatment-naive and three (60%) of five TKI-pretreated patients with baseline brain metastases. The study was stopped prematurely because of slow accrual. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib plus bevacizumab was well tolerated without unanticipated toxicities or dose-limiting toxicities.

ESMO recommendations on the standard methods to detect RET fusions and mutations in daily practice and clinical research.

Aberrant activation of RET is a critical driver of growth and proliferation in diverse solid tumours. Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) showing anti-RET activities have been tested in RET-altered tumours with variable results. The low target specificity with consequent increase in side-effects and off-target toxicities resulting in dose reduction and drug discontinuation are some of the major issues with MKIs. To overcome these issues, new selective RET inhibitors such as pralsetinib (BLU-667) and selpercatinib (LOXO-292) have been developed in clinical trials, with selpercatinib recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The results of these trials showed marked and durable antitumour activity and manageable toxicity profiles in patients with RET-altered tumours. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) launched a collaborative project to review the available methods for the detection of RET gene alterations, their potential applications and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of RET fusion genes and mutations in human malignancies. We present here recommendations for the routine clinical detection of targetable RET rearrangements and mutations.

Mechanisms of resistance to selective RET tyrosine kinase inhibitors in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions are a validated target in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RET-selective inhibitors selpercatinib (LOXO-292) and pralsetinib (BLU-667) recently demonstrated favorable antitumor activity and safety profiles in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and both have received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Insights into mechanisms of resistance to selective RET inhibitors remain limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was performed at five institutions. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA was obtained from patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC after treatment with selpercatinib or pralsetinib and assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) or MET FISH. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 23 post-treatment tissue and/or plasma biopsies from 18 RET fusion-positive patients who received an RET-selective inhibitor (selpercatinib, n = 10; pralsetinib, n = 7; pralsetinib followed by selpercatinib, n = 1, with biopsy after each inhibitor). Three cases had paired tissue and plasma samples, of which one also had two serial resistant tissue specimens. The median progression-free survival on RET inhibitors was 6.3 months [95% confidence interval 3.6-10.8 months]. Acquired RET mutations were identified in two cases (10%), both affecting the RET G810 residue in the kinase solvent front. Three resistant cases (15%) harbored acquired MET amplification without concurrent RET resistance mutations, and one specimen had acquired KRAS amplification. No other canonical driver alterations were identified by NGS. Among 16 resistant tumor specimens, none had evidence of squamous or small-cell histologic transformation. CONCLUSIONS: RET solvent front mutations are a recurrent mechanism of RET inhibitor resistance, although they occurred at a relatively low frequency. The majority of resistance to selective RET inhibition may be driven by RET-independent resistance such as acquired MET or KRAS amplification. Next-generation RET inhibitors with potency against RET resistance mutations and combination strategies are needed to effectively overcome resistance in these patients.

Clinical activity of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade in never, light, and heavy smokers with non-small-cell lung cancer and PD-L1 expression ≥50.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) also predicts response to ICIs but is often not available in real time for decision making in the first-line setting. Smoking exposure can be a proxy for TMB in NSCLC. The impact of smoking status on efficacy of PD-1 blockade in NSCLC patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% has not been well defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To investigate the relationship between smoking and activity of ICIs in NSCLC, we retrospectively studied 315 patients with NSCLC and PD-L1 TPS ≥50% at five USA academic medical centers. Objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) were compared between never (<100 lifetime cigarettes), light (≤10 pack-years), and heavy (>10 pack-years) smokers. A subset of patients underwent next-generation sequencing to estimate TMB. RESULTS: We identified 36 (11%) never, 42 (13%) light, and 237 (75%) heavy smokers with NSCLC and PD-L1 TPS ≥50% treated with ICIs. Objective responses were observed in 27%, 40%, and 40% of never, light, and heavy smokers, respectively (P = 0.180 never versus heavy; P = 1.000 light versus heavy). Median PFS and median DOR were numerically shorter in never and light smokers compared with heavy smokers (PFS 3.0 versus 4.0 versus 5.4 months; median DOR 6.9 versus 10.8 versus 17.8 months), but were not statistically different [PFS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.37, P = 0.135 and HR 1.24, P = 0.272; DOR: HR 1.92, P = 0.217 and HR 1.79, P = 0.141]. CONCLUSIONS: PD-(L)1 inhibitors are associated with antitumor activity in NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% regardless of smoking status. Nevertheless, there is a signal of potentially decreased durability among never and light smokers that should be further evaluated. Distinct immunobiologic features may affect initial response versus durability of antitumor immunity to programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade.

Outcomes to first-line pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and very high PD-L1 expression.

BACKGROUND: In non-small-cell lung cancers with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on ≥50% of tumor cells, first-line treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab improves survival compared with platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Whether higher PD-L1 levels within the expression range of 50%-100% predict for even greater benefit to pembrolizumab is currently unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed the impact of PD-L1 expression levels on the overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS) in patients who received commercial pembrolizumab as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 expression of ≥50% and negative for genomic alterations in the EGFR and ALK genes . RESULTS: Among 187 patients included in this analysis, the ORR was 44.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.1% to 51.8%], the mPFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.5-8.5), and the mOS was not reached. The median PD-L1 expression level among patients who experienced a response to pembrolizumab was significantly higher than among patients with stable or progressive disease (90% versus 75%, P < 0.001). Compared with patients with PD-L1 expression of 50%-89% (N = 107), patients with an expression level of 90%-100% (N = 80) had a significantly higher ORR (60.0% versus 32.7%, P < 0.001), a significantly longer mPFS [14.5 versus 4.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.74), P < 0.01], and a significantly longer mOS [not reached versus 15.9 months, HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.21-0.70), P = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with NSCLC and PD-L1 expression of ≥50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab, clinical outcomes are significantly improved in NSCLCs with a PD-L1 expression of ≥90%. These findings have implications for treatment selection as well as for clinical trial interpretation and design.

Phase Ib study of atezolizumab combined with cobimetinib in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence suggests that MEK inhibition promotes accumulation and survival of intratumoral tumor-specific T cells and can synergize with immune checkpoint inhibition. We investigated the safety and clinical activity of combining a MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, and a programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, atezolizumab, in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I/Ib study treated PD-L1/PD-1-naive patients with solid tumors in a dose-escalation stage and then in multiple, indication-specific dose-expansion cohorts. In most patients, cobimetinib was dosed once daily orally for 21 days on, 7 days off. Atezolizumab was dosed at 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability. Secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between 27 December 2013 and 9 May 2016, 152 patients were enrolled. As of 4 September 2017, 150 patients received ≥1 dose of atezolizumab, including 14 in the dose-escalation cohorts and 136 in the dose-expansion cohorts. Patients had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; n = 84), melanoma (n = 22), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 28), and other solid tumors (n = 16). The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (67%), rash (48%), and fatigue (40%), similar to those with single-agent cobimetinib and atezolizumab. One (<1%) treatment-related grade 5 AE occurred (sepsis). Forty-five (30%) and 23 patients (15%) had AEs that led to discontinuation of cobimetinib and atezolizumab, respectively. Confirmed responses were observed in 7 of 84 patients (8%) with mCRC (6 responders were microsatellite low/stable, 1 was microsatellite instable), 9 of 22 patients (41%) with melanoma, and 5 of 28 patients (18%) with NSCLC. Clinical activity was independent of KRAS/BRAF status across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib had manageable safety and clinical activity irrespective of KRAS/BRAF status. Although potential synergistic activity was seen in mCRC, this was not confirmed in a subsequent phase III study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01988896 (the investigators in the NCT01988896 study are listed in the supplementary Appendix, available at Annals of Oncology online).

Activity of the Hsp90 inhibitor luminespib among non-small-cell lung cancers harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions.

Background: There are currently no approved targeted therapies for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions (ins20), a subgroup of EGFR mutations that are generally refractory to first/second generation EGFR inhibitors. We report the final results of a phase II trial evaluating the activity of the Hsp90 inhibitor luminespib (AUY922) in NSCLC patients with EGFR ins20. Patients and methods: Twenty-nine patients with stage IV NSCLC with EGFR ins20 identified on local testing and at least one prior therapy were enrolled on the trial between August 2013 and October 2016. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), with a pre-determined target rate of effectiveness [defined as the rate of partial response (PR) plus stable disease (SD) lasting ≥3 months] of 20%. Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), safety and response by EGFR ins20 subtype. Results: Among the 29 patients (18 females, median age 60 years) the ORR was 17%, median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI 1.4-5.6) and median OS (mOS) was 13 months (95% CI 4.9-19.5). The results exceeded the pre-determined target rate of effectiveness with 11/29 (38%) patients having a PR or an SD ≥3 months. The most common luminespib-related toxicities were diarrhea (83%), visual changes (76%) and fatigue (45%). All study treatment was stopped on 28 February 2017 due to dissolution of study drug availability; 3 patients were on treatment at study termination. Conclusion: The study met its primary end point, suggesting that luminespib may be an active therapy for advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR ins20. Luminespib is generally well-tolerated, though reversible low-grade ocular toxicity is common. Further study of luminespib and other hsp90 inhibitors in this population is warranted. Study registration (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01854034.