Pragmaticism in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials are essential for advancing oncology treatment strategies and have contributed significantly to the decline in cancer mortality rates over the past decades. Traditional explanatory trials, focused on establishing intervention efficacy in ideal settings, often lack generalizability and may not reflect real-world patient care scenarios. Furthermore, increasing complexity in cancer clinical trial design has led to challenges such as protocol deviations, slow enrollment leading to lengthened durations of trial, and escalating costs. By contrast, pragmatic trials aim to assess intervention effectiveness in more representative patient populations under routine clinical conditions. Here, we review the principles, methodologies, challenges, and advantages of incorporating pragmatic features (PFs) into cancer clinical trials. We illustrate the application of pragmatic trial designs in oncology and discuss the QUASAR collaborative, TAPUR study, and the ongoing PRAGMATICA-LUNG trial. Although not all oncology trials may be amenable to adopting fully pragmatic designs, integration of PFs when feasible will enhance trial generalizability and real-world applicability. Project Pragmatica and similar initiatives advocate for the integration of real-world practice with clinical trials, fostering a nuanced approach to oncology research that balances efficacy and effectiveness assessments, ultimately with a goal of improving patient outcomes.

A Practical Review of Encorafenib and Binimetinib Therapy Management in Patients with BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

High Pretreatment DHEA Is Associated with Inferior Immunotherapy Response in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Background: Sex difference in the immune response may influence patients' response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We conducted a prospective observation study to determine the correlation between pretreatment sex hormone levels and response to ICIs in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Method: Pretreatment plasma samples from 61 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC prior to ICI therapy were collected. Six sex hormone levels [pyrazole triol, 17 ß-estradiol, 5-androstenediol, 3ß-androstenediol, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and S-equol] were measured using liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between the high- and low-level groups in the whole cohort. Result: Among the six sex hormones measured, DHEA levels were significantly higher among patients without clinical benefits in the discovery cohort; the remaining sex hormones did not differ significantly. In the whole cohort, median PFS was 22 months for patients with low DHEA levels vs. 3.8 months for those with high DHEA [hazard ratio, 14.23 (95% CI, 4.7-43); p < 0.001]. A significant association was also observed for OS [hazard ratio, 8.2 (95% CI, 2.89-23.35); p < 0.0001]. Conclusions: High pretreatment plasma DHEA levels were associated with poor clinical outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with ICIs.

ctDNA for the Evaluation and Management of EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a new paradigm in optimizing treatment strategies for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its potential spans early-stage disease, influencing adjuvant therapy, to advanced disease, where it aids in identifying genomic markers and resistance mechanisms. This review explores the evolving landscape of utilizing liquid biopsies, specifically circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), in the management of NSCLC with EGFR mutations. While tissue-based genomic testing remains the cornerstone for clinical decision-making, liquid biopsies offer a well-validated, guideline-recommended alternative approach. Ongoing trials integrating ctDNA for EGFR-mutant NSCLC management are also discussed, shedding light on the potential of ctDNA in early-stage disease, including its applications in prognostication, risk stratification, and minimal residual disease detection post-curative intent treatment. For advanced disease, the role of ctDNA in identifying resistance mechanisms to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is explored, providing insights into disease progression and guiding treatment decisions. This review also addresses the challenges, including the limitations in sensitivity of current assays for disease recurrence detection, and calls for future studies to refine treatment approaches, standardize reporting, and explore alternative biofluids for enhanced sensitivity. A systematic approach is crucial to address barriers to ctDNA deployment, ensuring equitable access, and facilitating its integration into routine clinical practice.

STAR-121: A Phase III Randomized Study of Domvanalimab and Zimberelimab in Combination With Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab With Chemotherapy in Untreated Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With No Actionable Gene Alterations.

INTRODUCTION: Dual inhibition with a T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domains plus programmed death (ligand)-1 (PD[L]-1) inhibitors, with or without chemotherapy, is an emerging therapeutic strategy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The STAR-121 (NCT05502237) phase III, global, randomized, open-label study will investigate first-line domvanalimab (anti-TIGIT) and zimberelimab (anti-PD-1) plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in mNSCLC with no actionable gene alterations. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Approximately 720 participants (≥18 years old) with untreated mNSCLC and no EGFR and ALK mutations will be randomized into 3 groups (A, B, or C) in a 4:4:1 ratio and stratified by baseline PD-L1 expression (tumor cells <50% vs. ≥50%), histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), and geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia). Group A will receive domvanalimab 1200 mg plus zimberelimab 360 mg plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PT), group B will receive pembrolizumab 200 mg plus PT, and group C will receive zimberelimab 360 mg plus PT, every 3 weeks. Treatment will be administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and overall survival for group A versus B. Key secondary endpoints comprise overall response rate (by BICR), safety, and quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include efficacy and safety between groups A and C, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Enrollment in the STAR-121 study commenced on October 12, 2022, and is currently ongoing with completion planned by September 2024. The study completion is expected by December 2027.

Multi-omics Analysis Reveals Immune Features Associated with Immunotherapy Benefit in Patients with Squamous Cell Lung Cancer from Phase III Lung-MAP S1400I Trial.

PURPOSE: Identifying molecular and immune features to guide immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens remains an unmet clinical need. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tissue and longitudinal blood specimens from phase III trial S1400I in patients with metastatic squamous non-small cell carcinoma (SqNSCLC) treated with nivolumab monotherapy (nivo) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo+ipi) were subjected to multi-omics analyses including multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF), nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel, whole-exome sequencing, and Olink. RESULTS: Higher immune scores from immune gene expression profiling or immune cell infiltration by mIF were associated with response to ICIs and improved survival, except regulatory T cells, which were associated with worse overall survival (OS) for patients receiving nivo+ipi. Immune cell density and closer proximity of CD8+GZB+ T cells to malignant cells were associated with superior progression-free survival and OS. The cold immune landscape of NSCLC was associated with a higher level of chromosomal copy-number variation (CNV) burden. Patients with LRP1B-mutant tumors had a shorter survival than patients with LRP1B-wild-type tumors. Olink assays revealed soluble proteins such as LAMP3 increased in responders while IL6 and CXCL13 increased in nonresponders. Upregulation of serum CXCL13, MMP12, CSF-1, and IL8 were associated with worse survival before radiologic progression. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency, distribution, and clustering of immune cells relative to malignant ones can impact ICI efficacy in patients with SqNSCLC. High CNV burden may contribute to the cold immune microenvironment. Soluble inflammation/immune-related proteins in the blood have the potential to monitor therapeutic benefit from ICI treatment in patients with SqNSCLC.

Consolidation Osimertinib Versus Durvalumab Versus Observation After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Unresectable EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab improves survival when used as consolidation therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC. The optimal consolidation therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) stage III NSCLC remains unknown. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, international retrospective analysis across 24 institutions, we evaluated outcomes in patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT followed by consolidation therapy with osimertinib, durvalumab, or observation between 2015 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS, primary end point) and overall survival (secondary end point). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) during consolidation treatment were defined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent CRT, 56 received consolidation durvalumab, 33 received consolidation osimertinib, and 47 was on observation alone. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three cohorts. With a median follow-up of 46 months for the entire cohort, the median duration of treatment was not reached (NR) for osimertinib (interquartile range: NR-NR) and was 5.5 (interquartile range: 2.4-10.8) months with durvalumab. After adjusting for nodal status, stage III A/B/C, and age, patients treated with consolidation osimertinib had significantly longer 24-month rwPFS compared to those treated with durvalumab or in the observation cohorts (osimertinib: 86%, durvalumab: 30%, observation: 27%, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in rwPFS between the durvalumab and the observation cohorts. No significant difference in overall survival across the three cohorts was detected, likely due to the limited follow-up. Any-grade trAE occurred in 52% (2 [6.1%] grade ≥3) and 48% (10 [18%] grade ≥3) of patients treated with osimertinib and durvalumab, respectively. Of 45 patients who progressed on consolidation durvalumab, 37 (82%) subsequently received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Of these, 14 (38%) patients developed trAEs including five patients with pneumonitis (14%; 2 [5.4%] grade ≥3) and five patients with diarrhea (14%; 1 [2.7%] grade ≥3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that among patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, consolidation osimertinib was associated with a significantly longer rwPFS compared to durvalumab or observation. No unanticipated safety signals were observed with consolidation osimertinib.

Pan-Tumor Analytical Validation and Osimertinib Clinical Validation in EGFR Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, Supporting the First Next-Generation Sequencing Liquid Biopsy in Vitro Diagnostic.

Comprehensive genotyping is necessary to identify therapy options for patients with advanced cancer; however, many cancers are not tested, partly because of tissue limitations. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) liquid biopsies overcome some limitations, but clinical validity is not established and adoption is limited. Herein, clinical bridging studies used pretreatment plasma samples and data from FLAURA (NCT02296125; n = 441) and AURA3 (NCT02151981; n = 450) pivotal studies to demonstrate clinical validity of Guardant360 CDx (NGS LBx) to identify patients with advanced EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer who may benefit from osimertinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with EGFR mutation as identified by NGS LBx had significant PFS benefit with first-line osimertinib over standard of care (15.2 versus 9.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; P < 0.0001) and with later-line osimertinib over chemotherapy (8.3 versus 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.34; P < 0.0001). PFS benefits were similar to the original trial cohorts selected by tissue-based EGFR testing. Analytical validation included accuracy, precision, limit of detection, and specificity. Analytical validity was established for EGFR mutation detection and pan-tumor profiling. Panel-wide limit of detection was 0.1% to 0.5%, with 98% to 100% per-sample specificity. Patients with EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer by NGS LBx had improved PFS with osimertinib, confirming clinical validity. Analytical validity was established for guideline-recommended therapeutic targets across solid tumors. The resulting US Food and Drug Administration approval of NGS LBx demonstrated safety and effectiveness for its intended use and is expected to improve adherence to guideline-recommended targeted therapy use.

Osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation.

Background: The optimal treatment sequencing for patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a subject of debate. In the United States, osimertinib is the preferred EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in the first-line setting. However, small retrospective studies suggest that alternative EGFR TKI sequencing strategies may produce similar outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation treated with osimertinib vs. afatinib as first-line therapy. Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study examined 86 patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with either afatinib (n=15) or osimertinib (n=71) in the first-line setting. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included time on EGFR TKI, overall survival (OS), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: There was no difference in the PFS (median: 27.9 vs. 29.0 months, P=0.75), OS (P=0.18), and the median time on first-line EGFR TKI (23.9 vs. 15.2 months, P=0.10) between the afatinib and osimertinib groups, respectively. The number of AEs was also similar between the two treatment groups (P=0.17). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective study, there were no differences in PFS or OS between patients treated with afatinib or osimertinib in the first-line setting. These findings should be further investigated in larger prospective studies.

Representativeness of Patients Enrolled in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).

PURPOSE: Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP), a public-private partnership, established infrastructure for conducting a biomarker-driven master protocol in molecularly targeted therapies. We compared characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP with those of patients in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials to examine if master protocols improve trial access. METHODS: We examined patients enrolled in Lung-MAP (2014-2020) according to sociodemographic characteristics. Proportions for characteristics were compared with those for a set of advanced NSCLC trials (2001-2020) and the US advanced NSCLC population using SEER registry data (2014-2018). Characteristics of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP treatment substudies were examined in subgroup analysis. Two-sided tests of proportions at an alpha of .01 were used for all comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 3,556 patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were compared with 2,215 patients enrolled in other NSCLC studies. Patients enrolled in Lung-MAP were more likely to be 65 years and older (57.2% v 46.3%; P < .0001), from rural areas (17.3% v 14.4%; P = .004), and from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods (42.2% v 36.7%, P < .0001), but less likely to be female (38.6% v 47.2%; P < .0001), Asian (2.8% v 5.1%; P < .0001), or Hispanic (2.4% v 3.8%; P = .003). Among patients younger than 65 years, Lung-MAP enrolled more patients using Medicaid/no insurance (27.6% v 17.8%; P < .0001). Compared with the US advanced NSCLC population, Lung-MAP under represented patients 65 years and older (57.2% v 69.8%; P < .0001), females (38.6% v 46.0%; P < .0001), and racial or ethnic minorities (14.8% v 21.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Master protocols may improve access to trials using novel therapeutics for older patients and socioeconomically vulnerable patients compared with conventional trials, but specific patient exclusion criteria influenced demographic composition. Further research examining participation barriers for under represented racial or ethnic minorities in precision medicine clinical trials is warranted.

A phase I/IB trial of binimetinib in combination with erlotinib in NSCLC harboring activating KRAS or EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in EGFR or KRAS are highly prevalent in NSCLC, share activation of the MAPK pathway and may be amenable to combination therapy to prevent negative feedback activation. METHODS: In this phase 1/1B trial, we tested the combination of binimetinib and erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC with at least 1 prior line of treatment (unless with activating EGFR mutation which could be treatment-naïve). A subsequent phase 1B expansion accrued patients with either EGFR- or KRAS-mutation using the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) from Phase 1. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of binimetinib plus erlotinib and establish the RP2D. RESULTS: 43 patients enrolled (dose-escalation = 23; expansion = 20). 17 harbored EGFR mutation and 22 had KRAS mutation. The RP2D was erlotinib 100 mg daily and binimetinib 15 mg BID × 5 days/week. Common AEs across all doses included diarrhea (69.8%), rash (44.2%), fatigue (32.6%), and nausea (32.6%), and were primarily grade 1/2. Among KRAS mutant patients, 1 (5%) had confirmed partial response and 8 (36%) achieved stable disease as best overall response. Among EGFR mutant patients, 9 were TKI-naïve with 8 (89%) having partial response, and 8 were TKI-pretreated with no partial responses and 1 (13%) stable disease as best overall response. CONCLUSIONS: Binimetinib plus erlotinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile and modest efficacy including one confirmed objective response in a KRAS mutant patient. While clinical utility of this specific combination was limited, these results support development of combinations using novel small molecule inhibitors of RAS, selective EGFR- and other MAPK pathway inhibitors, many of which have improved therapeutic indices. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01859026.

Real-world outcomes in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with docetaxel in second-line or beyond.

INTRODUCTION: The KRAS G12C mutation has recently become a druggable target in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this observational study, we present real-world clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes data in patients with KRAS mutation-positive advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC), including those with KRAS G12C and KRAS non-G12C mutations, who received docetaxel as standard-of-care treatment in the second-line and beyond (2L+). METHODS: US-based electronic health record-derived de-identified databases were used to assess clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes in adult aNSCLC patients with KRAS mutations treated with 2L+ docetaxel between January 1, 2011, and March 31, 2021. The primary endpoints were median real-world overall survival OS (rwOS) and median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), which were estimated in 2L, third-line, fourth-line, and 2L+ analysis sets among patients who had a 6-month minimum opportunity for follow-up and were not taking a clinical trial drug. RESULTS: Of the 677 patients with KRAS-mutant aNSCLC (KRAS mutant cohort) treated with 2L+ docetaxel, 295 (43.6%) had KRAS G12C mutation (KRAS G12C cohort) and 382 (56.4%) had KRAS non-G12C mutation (KRAS non-G12C cohort). Across all cohorts, approximately 47%, 35%, 14-15%, and 6-9% of patients received 2L, third-line, fourth-line, and fifth- or later-line docetaxel, respectively. In the KRAS G12C cohort, ∼68% of patients were treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor prior to 2L+ docetaxel. Most 2L+ docetaxel regimens in the KRAS G12C cohort were combinations (59.5%), primarily with ramucirumab (45.2%). In the KRAS G12C cohort, the median rwOS and median rwPFS after 2L+ docetaxel were 6.0 (95% CI, 4.9-7.1) and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.7-4.2) months, respectively, with similar trends observed in other cohorts and lines of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world outcomes were poor in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated aNSCLC treated with 2L+ docetaxel. Targeted and more efficacious treatment options in these patients are warranted.

Early Clearance of Plasma Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations as a Predictor of Outcome on Osimertinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer; Exploratory Analysis from AURA3 and FLAURA.

PURPOSE: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis is used for genotyping advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); monitoring dynamic ctDNA changes may be used to predict outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, exploratory analysis of two phase III trials [AURA3 (NCT02151981), FLAURA (NCT02296125)]. All patients had EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm; ex19del or L858R) advanced NSCLC; AURA3 also included T790M-positive NSCLC. Osimertinib (FLAURA, AURA3), or comparator EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI; gefitinib/erlotinib; FLAURA), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (AURA3) was given. Plasma EGFRm was analyzed at baseline and Weeks 3/6 by droplet digital PCR. Outcomes were assessed by detectable/non-detectable baseline plasma EGFRm and plasma EGFRm clearance (non-detection) at Weeks 3/6. RESULTS: In AURA3 (n = 291), non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm had longer median progression-free survival [mPFS; HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.68; P < 0.0001]. In patients with Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 184), respectively, mPFS (months; 95% CI) was 10.9 (8.3-12.6) versus 5.7 (4.1-9.7) with osimertinib and 6.2 (4.0-9.7) versus 4.2 (4.0-5.1) with platinum-pemetrexed. In FLAURA (n = 499), mPFS was longer with non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70; P < 0.0001). For Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 334), respectively, mPFS was 19.8 (15.1 to not calculable) versus 11.3 (9.5-16.5) with osimertinib and 10.8 (9.7-11.1) versus 7.0 (5.6-8.3) with comparator EGFR-TKI. Similar outcomes were observed by Week 6 clearance/non-clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma EGFRm analysis as early as 3 weeks on-treatment has the potential to predict outcomes in EGFRm advanced NSCLC.

Phase II Study of Docetaxel and Trametinib in Patients with KRAS Mutation Positive Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC; SWOG S1507, NCT-02642042).

PURPOSE: Efficacy of MEK inhibitors in KRAS+ NSCLC may differ based on specific KRAS mutations and comutations. Our hypothesis was that docetaxel and trametinib would improve activity in KRAS+ NSCLC and specifically in KRAS G12C NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: S1507 is a single-arm phase II study assessing the response rate (RR) with docetaxel plus trametinib in recurrent KRAS+ NSCLC and secondarily in the G12C subset. The accrual goal was 45 eligible patients, with at least 25 with G12C mutation. The design was two-stage design to rule out a 17% RR, within the overall population at the one-sided 3% level and within the G12C subset at the 5% level. RESULTS: Between July 18, 2016, and March 15, 2018, 60 patients were enrolled with 53 eligible and 18 eligible in the G12C cohort. The RR was 34% [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-48] overall and 28% (95% CI, 10-53) in G12C. Median PFS and OS were 4.1 and 3.3 months and 10.9 and 8.8 months, overall and in the subset, respectively. Common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, rash, anemia, mucositis, and neutropenia. Among 26 patients with known status for TP53 (10+ve) and STK11 (5+ve), OS (HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.16-7.01), and RR (0% vs. 56%, P = 0.004) were worse in patients with TP53 mutated versus wild-type cancers. CONCLUSIONS: RRs were significantly improved in the overall population. Contrary to preclinical studies, the combination showed no improvement in efficacy in G12C patients. Comutations may influence therapeutic efficacy of KRAS directed therapies and are worthy of further evaluation. See related commentary by Cantor and Aggarwal, p. 3563.

Early Adverse Event Derived Biomarkers in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy.

RATIONALE: Adverse events (AEs) have been shown to have clinical associations, in addition to patient safety assessments of drugs of interest. However, due to their complex content and associated data structure, AE evaluation has been restricted to descriptive statistics and small AE subset for efficacy analysis, limiting the opportunity for global discovery. This study takes a unique approach to utilize AE-associated parameters to derive a set of innovative AE metrics. Comprehensive analysis of the AE-derived biomarkers enhances the chance of discovering new predictive AE biomarkers of clinical outcomes. METHODS: We utilized a set of AE-associated parameters (grade, treatment relatedness, occurrence, frequency, and duration) to derive 24 AE biomarkers. We further innovatively defined early AE biomarkers by landmark analysis at an early time point to assess the predictive value. Statistical methods included the Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), two-sample t-test for mean difference of AE frequency and duration between disease control (DC: complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD)) versus progressive disease (PD), and Pearson correlation analysis for relationship of AE frequency and duration versus treatment duration. Two study cohorts (Cohort A: vorinostat + pembrolizumab, and B: Taminadenant) from two immunotherapy trials in late-stage non-small cell lung cancer were used to test the potential predictiveness of AE-derived biomarkers. Data from over 800 AEs were collected per standard operating procedure in a clinical trial using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 (CTCAE). Clinical outcomes for statistical analysis included PFS, OS, and DC. RESULTS: An early AE was defined as event occurrence at or prior to day 30 from initial treatment date. The early AEs were then used to calculate the 24 early AE biomarkers to assess overall AE, each toxicity category, and each individual AE. These early AE-derived biomarkers were evaluated for global discovery of clinical association. Both cohorts showed that early AE biomarkers were associated with clinical outcomes. Patients previously experienced with low-grade AEs (including treatment related AEs (TrAE)) had improved PFS, OS, and were associated with DC. The significant early AEs included low-grade TrAE in overall AE, endocrine disorders, hypothyroidism (pembrolizumab's immune-related adverse event (irAE)), and platelet count decreased (vorinostat related TrAE) for Cohort A and low-grade AE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders, and nausea for Cohort B. In contrast, patients with early development of high-grade AEs tended to have poorer PFS, OS, and correlated with PD. The associated early AEs included high-grade TrAE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders with two members, diarrhea and vomiting, for Cohort A and high-grade AE in overall AE, three toxicity categories, and five related individual AEs for Cohort B. One low-grade TrAE, alanine aminotransferase increased (vorinostat + pembrolizumab related), was an irAE and correlated with worse OS in Cohort A. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the potential clinical utility of early AE-derived biomarkers in predicting positive and negative clinical outcomes. It could be TrAEs or combination of TrAEs and nonTrAEs from overall AEs, toxicity category AEs, to individual AEs with low-grade event leaning to encouraging effect and high-grade event to undesirable impact. Moreover, the methodology of the AE-derived biomarkers could change current AE analysis practice from a descriptive summary into modern informative statistics. It modernizes AE data analysis by helping clinicians discover novel AE biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes and facilitate the generation of vast clinically meaningful research hypotheses in a new AE content to fulfill the demands of precision medicine.

Goals and goal perceptions in patients with advanced stage lung cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Goals provide insight into what is important to an individual. We describe the development and application of a mixed methods approach to elicit goals and perceptions about goals in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line treatment for advanced lung cancer participated in semi-structured interviews about their goals. Participants self-generated goals, then selected and ranked their three most important goals and provided Likert scale ratings of goal-related perceptions (e.g., attainability, locus of control). Independent raters coded goals into content domains. One month later, participants reported perceived progress toward goals and facilitators of and barriers to progress. RESULTS: Participants (N = 75, Mage = 64.5 years, 59% female) identified goals across eight domains: social/role/relationship, everyday/practical, leisure/pleasure, psychological/existential/spiritual, major life changes or achievements, cancer treatment response/disease outcomes, palliative outcomes, and behavioral health improvement. Of all goals identified (N = 352), 72% of patients had at least one social/role/relationship goal, 68% had a leisure/pleasure goal, and 29% had a cancer treatment response goal. On average, participants considered their goals to be attainable, perceived a high degree of control over reaching goals, anticipated making "some" progress in the short term, and perceived a high likelihood of reaching goals in the future. Facilitators of progress included mental fortitude, feeling physically well, and social support. Barriers included cancer-related side effects, practical challenges, and COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of participant goals focused on meaningful engagement and living well. Goals were largely viewed as attainable and under participants' control. Cancer clinicians may consider how to support patients in working toward valued goals in conjunction with oncology care.

Comutations and KRASG12C Inhibitor Efficacy in Advanced NSCLC.

Molecular modifiers of KRASG12C inhibitor (KRASG12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinicogenomic analysis of 424 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we identified and validated coalterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, comutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ∼50% of those with early disease progression (progression-free survival ≤3 months) with KRASG12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent coalterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRASG12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRASG12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies. SIGNIFICANCE: In this work, we identify co-occurring genomic alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as independent determinants of poor clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, and we propose a framework for patient stratification and treatment personalization based on the comutational status of individual tumors. See related commentary by Heng et al., p. 1513. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1501.

Qualitative Findings From a Survey on Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: To reveal successes and potential limitations of the lung cancer screening program, we conducted a survey that included both quantitative and open-ended questions to measure patient experiences and satisfaction with screening. METHODS: We report on the five open-ended items related to barriers to returning for screening, experience with other cancer prevention screenings, positive and negative experiences, and suggestions for improving future appointments. The open-ended responses were analyzed using constant comparison method and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Respondents (182 patients, 86% response rate for open-ended questions) provided generally positive comments about their lung cancer screening experience. Negative comments were related to desire for more information about results, long wait times for results, and billing issues. Suggestions for improvements included: scheduling on-line appointments and text or email reminders, lower costs, and responding to uncertainty about eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Findings provide insights about patient experiences and satisfaction with lung cancer screening which is important given low uptake. Ongoing patient-centered feedback may improve the lung cancer screening experience and increase follow-up screening rates.