Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries.

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

For patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treatment strategies have changed significantly due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. In the last few years, we have seen an explosive growth of newly introduced targeted therapies in oncology and this development is expected to continue in the future. Besides primary targetable aberrations, emerging diagnostic biomarkers also include relevant co-occurring mutations and resistance mechanisms involved in disease progression, that have impact on optimal treatment management. To accommodate testing of pending biomarkers, it is necessary to establish routine large-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) for all patients with advanced stage NSCLC. For cost-effectiveness and accessibility, it is recommended to implement predictive molecular testing using large-panel NGS in a dedicated, centralized expert laboratory within a regional oncology network. The central molecular testing center should host a regional Molecular Tumor Board and function as a hub for interpretation of rare and complex testing results and clinical decision-making.

A phase 2 trial combining afatinib with cetuximab in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) mutations are the third most common EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are associated with primary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There is evidence of activity of combining EGFR TKIs with monoclonal antibodies. This study reports on the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with cetuximab. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR ex20ins mutation were treated with afatinib 40 mg once daily in combination with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) at 18 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients started treatment, with a median age of 65 years (range, 40-80 years), 78% female, and 95% White. The study achieved its primary end point with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks, an overall response rate (ORR) of 43%, and a 32% confirmed ORR. Best responses were partial (n = 16), stable (n = 16), progressive disease (n = 2), or not evaluable (n = 3). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.3 months) and median overall survival was 16.8 months (95% CI, 10.7-25.8 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (70%), rash (65%), dry skin (59%), paronychia (54%), and erythema (43%). Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 54% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with afatinib and cetuximab demonstrated antitumor activity with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks and a 32% confirmed ORR. Toxicity was significant, although manageable, after dose reduction.

First-in-human study of naporafenib (LXH254) with or without spartalizumab in adult patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK signaling pathway alterations.

BACKGROUND: We investigated naporafenib (LXH254), a pan-RAF kinase inhibitor, with or without spartalizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK pathway alterations. METHODS: This first-in-human phase 1 study had two dose-escalation arms: single-agent naporafenib (starting at 100 mg once-daily [QD]) and naporafenib (starting at the recommended dose/regimen)/spartalizumab (400 mg every 4 weeks). The naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion part enrolled patients with KRAS-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and NRAS-mutated melanoma. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated doses (MTD)/recommended doses for expansion (RDE) and evaluate tolerability and safety. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included in the naporafenib dose-escalation (n = 87), naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-escalation (n = 12) and naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion (n = 43) arms. The MTD/RDE of naporafenib was 600 mg twice-daily (BID). In naporafenib escalation, five patients experienced 7 dose-limiting toxicities: decreased platelet count (1200 mg QD); neuralgia, maculopapular rash, pruritus (600 mg BID); increased blood bilirubin, hyponatremia, peripheral sensory neuropathy (800 mg BID). No DLTs occurred in the naporafenib/spartalizumab arm: the RDE was established at 400 mg BID. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash and dermatitis acneiform (each 24.1%; naporafenib), nausea and pruritus (each 33.3%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; escalation) and rash (39.5%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; expansion). Naporafenib reduced DUSP6 expression in tumors. Two partial responses (PRs) occurred in naporafenib escalation, and 1 complete response and 3 PRs in the naporafenib/spartalizumab NRAS-mutated melanoma and KRAS-mutated NSCLC arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Naporafenib, with or without spartalizumab, showed an acceptable safety profile, pharmacodynamic activity and limited antitumor activity. Additional naporafenib combination therapies are currently under investigation.

Pralsetinib in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: A plain language summary of the ARROW study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research study called ARROW, which tested a medicine called pralsetinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, and other advanced solid tumours caused by a change in a gene called RET. For the purposes of this summary, only patients with NSCLC with a change in RET called fusion (RET fusion+) are highlighted. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In total, 281 patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC had taken part in this study across the USA, Europe, and Asia. Patients were asked to take four pills (adding up to 400 mg) of pralsetinib each day and were checked for any changes in their tumours, as well as for any side effects. After an average of 8 months of treatment with pralsetinib, 72% of previously untreated patients and 59% of patients who had previously received chemotherapy had considerable shrinkage of their tumours. Among 10 patients with tumours which had spread to the brain (all of whom had received previous treatments), 70% had their tumours shrink greatly in the brain after treatment with pralsetinib. On average, patients lived with little to no tumour growth for 16 months. In previously untreated patients, the most common severe side effects that were considered related to pralsetinib treatment were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils and lymphocytes), increased blood pressure, and an increase in a blood protein called creatine phosphokinase. In previously treated patients, the severe side effects were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils, lymphocytes, and leukocytes), increased blood pressure, and low levels of red blood cells. In both untreated and previously treated patients, the most common severe side effects that required hospital attention were lung inflammation/swelling causing shortness of breath (pneumonitis) and lung infection (pneumonia). WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, the ARROW study showed that pralsetinib was effective in shrinking tumours in patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC regardless of previous treatment history. The recorded side effects were expected in patients receiving this type of medicine. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03037385 (ARROW) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Amivantamab Compared with Real-World Physician's Choice after Platinum-Based Therapy from a Pan-European Chart Review of Patients with Lung Cancer and Activating EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) at the second line and beyond (2L+) have an unmet need for new treatment. Amivantamab, a bispecific EGFR- and MET-targeted antibody, demonstrated efficacy in this setting in the phase 1b, open-label CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of amivantamab to the choices made by real-world physicians (RWPC) using an external control cohort from the real-world evidence (RWE) chart review study, CATERPILLAR-RWE. Adjustment was conducted to address differences in prognostic variables between cohorts using inverse probability weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustments based on multivariable regression. In total, 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared for 55 lines of therapy from CATERPILLAR-RWE. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the amivantamab and IPW-weighted RWPC cohorts. For amivantamab versus RWPC using IPW adjustment, the response rate ratio for the overall response was 2.14 (p = 0.0181), and the progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 (p < 0.0001), 0.47 (p = 0.0063) and 0.48 (p = 0.0207), respectively. These analyses provide evidence of clinical and statistical benefits across multiple outcomes and adjustment methods, of amivantamab in platinum pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR Exon20ins. These results confirm earlier comparisons versus pooled national registry data.

A comprehensive overview of the heterogeneity of EGFR exon 20 variants in NSCLC and (pre)clinical activity to currently available treatments.

Activating EGFR mutations are commonly observed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). About 4-10 % of all activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are heterogenous in-frame deletion and/or insertion mutations clustering within exon 20 (EGFRex20+). NSCLC patients with EGFRex20+ mutations are treated as a single disease entity, irrespective of the type and location of the mutation. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the literature reporting both in vitro and clinical drug sensitivity across different EGFRex20+ mutations. The activating A763_Y764insFQEA mutation has a better tumor response in comparison with mutations in the near- and far regions directly following the C-helix and should therefore be treated differently. For other EGFRex20+ mutations marked differences in treatment responses have been reported indicating the need for a classification beyond the exon-based classification. A further classification can be achieved using a structure-function modeling approach and experimental data using patient-derived cell lines. The detailed overview of TKI responses for each EGFRex20+ mutation can assist treating physicians to select the most optimal drug for individual NSCLC patients.

Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

BACKGROUND: Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

Early Circulating Tumor DNA Dynamics and Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Advanced, ALK-Positive NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been used as a biomarker for prognostication and response to treatment. Here, we evaluate ctDNA as a potential biomarker for response to lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608). METHODS: Molecular responses were calculated using mean variant allele frequency (VAF), longitudinal mean change in VAF (dVAF), and ratio to baseline. Efficacy assessments (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate) were paired with individual patient ctDNA and analyzed for association. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, mean VAF at week 4 was decreased in both treatment arms. Considering all detected somatic variants, a reduction in dVAF (≤0) was associated with a longer PFS in the lorlatinib arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for a dVAF less than or equal to 0 versus more than 0 was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-1.12) in the lorlatinib arm. A similar association was not observed for crizotinib (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49-2.03). Comparing molecular responders with nonresponders, patients treated with lorlatinib who had a molecular response had longer PFS (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85); patients treated with crizotinib who had a molecular response had similar PFS as those without a molecular response (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.67-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC, early ctDNA dynamics predicted better outcome with lorlatinib but not with crizotinib. These results suggest that ctDNA may be used to monitor and potentially predict efficacy of lorlatinib treatment.

External validation of NTCP-models for radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models can be used to estimate the risk of radiation pneumonitis (RP). The aim of this study was to externally validate the most frequently used prediction models for RP, i.e., the QUANTEC and APPELT models, in a large cohort of lung cancer patients treated with IMRT or VMAT. [1-2] METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective cohort study, included lung cancer patients treated between 2013 and 2018. A closed testing procedure was performed to test the need for model updating. To improve model performance, modification or removal of variables was considered. Performance measures included tests for goodness of fit, discrimination, and calibration. RESULTS: In this cohort of 612 patients, the incidence of RP ≥ grade 2 was 14.5%. For the QUANTEC-model, recalibration was recommended which resulted in a revised intercept and adjusted regression coefficient (from 0.126 to 0.224) of the mean lung dose (MLD),. The APPELT-model needed revision including model updating with modification and elimination of variables. After revision, the New RP-model included the following predictors (and regression coefficients): MLD (B = 0.250), age (B = 0.049, and smoking status (B = 0.902). The discrimination of the updated APPELT-model was higher compared to the recalibrated QUANTEC-model (AUC: 0.79 vs. 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that both the QUANTEC- and APPELT-model needed revision. Next to changes of the intercept and regression coefficients, the APPELT model improved further by model updating and performed better than the recalibrated QUANTEC model. This New RP-model is widely applicable containing non-tumour site specific variables, which can easily be collected.

Influence of germline variations in drug transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2 on intracerebral osimertinib efficacy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are present in approximately 40% of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib is a substrate of transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2 and metabolized by CYP3A4. We investigated relationships between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) ABCB1 3435C>T, ABCG2 421C>A and 34G>A, and CYP3A4∗22 and CNS treatment efficacy of osimertinib in EGFRm+ NSCLC patients. Methods: Patients who started treatment with osimertinib for EGFRm+ NSCLC between November 2014 and June 2021 were included in this retrospective observational multicentre cohort study. For patients with baseline CNS metastases, the primary endpoint was CNS progression-free survival (CNS-PFS; time from osimertinib start until CNS disease progression or death). For patients with no or unknown baseline CNS metastases, the primary endpoint was CNS disease-free survival (CNS-DFS; time from osimertinib start until occurrence of new CNS metastases). Relationships between SNPs and baseline characteristics with CNS-PFS and CNS-DFS were studied with competing-risks survival analysis. Secondary endpoints were relationships between SNPs and PFS, overall survival, severe toxicity, and osimertinib pharmacokinetics. Findings: From 572 included patients, 201 had baseline CNS metastases. No SNP was associated with CNS-PFS. Genotype ABCG2 34GA/AA and/or ABCB1 3435CC --present in 35% of patients-- was significantly associated with decreased CNS-DFS (hazard ratio 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73; p = 0.009) in the multivariate analysis. This remained significant after applying a Bonferroni correction and internal validation through bootstrapping. ABCG2 421CA/AA was related to more severe toxicity (27.0% versus 16.5%; p = 0.010). Interpretation: ABCG2 34G>A and ABCB1 3435C>T are predictors for developing new CNS metastases during osimertinib treatment, probably because of diminished drug levels in the CNS. ABCG2 421C>A was significantly related with the incidence of severe toxicity. Pre-emptive genotyping for these SNPs could individualize osimertinib therapy. Addition of ABCG2 inhibitors for patients without ABCG2 34G>A should be studied further, to prevent new CNS metastases during osimertinib treatment. Funding: No funding was received for this trial.

A Systematic Evaluation of Cost-Saving Dosing Regimens for Therapeutic Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses. METHODS: We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development. RESULTS: We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice.

Therapeutic drug monitoring guided dosing versus standard dosing of alectinib in advanced ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer patients: Study protocol for an international, multicenter phase IV randomized controlled trial (ADAPT ALEC).

Background: Alectinib is first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. A shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) was observed when alectinib minimum plasma concentrations during steady state (Cmin,SS) were below 435 ng/mL. This may suggest that patients should have an alectinib Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL for a more favorable outcome. This potential target could be attained by using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), i.e. adjusting the dose based on measured plasma trough concentrations. Hypothetically, this will increase mPFS, but this has not yet been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, the ADAPT ALEC trial is designed, with the primary objective to prolong mPFS in NSCLC patients treated with alectinib by using TDM. Methods: ADAPT ALEC is a multicenter, phase IV RCT, in which patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced ALK positive (+) NSCLC eligible for alectinib in daily care are enrolled. Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) into intervention arm A (TDM) or B (control), stratified by brain metastases and prior ALK treatments. Starting dose in both arms is the approved flat fixed dose of alectinib 600 mg taken twice daily with food. In case of alectinib Cmin,SS < 435 ng/mL, arm A will receive increased doses of alectinib till Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL when considered tolerable. The primary outcome is mPFS, where progressive disease is defined according to RECIST v1.1 or all-cause death and assessed by CT-scans and MRI brain. Secondary endpoints are feasibility and tolerability of TDM, patient and physician adherence, overall response rate, median overall survival, intracranial PFS, quality of life, toxicity, alectinib-M4 concentrations and cost-effectiveness of TDM. Exploratory endpoints are circulating tumor DNA and body composition. Discussion: The ADAPT ALEC will show whether treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC improve when using TDM-guided dosing of alectinib instead of fixed dosing. The results will provide high quality evidence for deciding whether TDM should be implemented as standard of care and this will have important consequences for the prescribing of alectinib. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05525338.

Overall survival in advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer using different tyrosine kinase inhibitors in The Netherlands: a retrospective, nationwide registry study.

Background: Clinical guidelines advise osimertinib as preferred first line treatment for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with deletions in exon 19 (del19) or exon 21 L858R mutation. However, for first-line osimertinib the real world overall survival (OS) in mutation subgroups remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world OS of those patients treated with different generations of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), and to identify predictors of survival. Methods: Using real-world data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) we assessed patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC with del19 or L858R mutation between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, primarily treated with then regularly available TKIs (including osimertinib). Findings: Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, 57,592 patients were included in the NCR. Within this cohort we identified 1109 patients, 654 (59%) with del19 and 455 (41%) with L858R mutations, respectively; 230 (21%) patients were diagnosed with baseline brain metastases (BM). Patients were treated with gefitinib (19%, 213/1109), erlotinib (42%, 470/1109), afatinib (15%, 161/1109) or osimertinib (24%, 265/1109). Median OS was superior for del19 versus L858R (28.4 months (95% CI 25.6-30.6) versus 17.7 months (95% CI 16.1-19.5), p < 0.001. In multivariable analysis, no difference in survival was observed between various TKIs in both groups. Only in the subgroup of patients with del19 and baseline BM, a benefit was observed for treatment with osimertinib. Interpretation: In this nationwide real-world cohort, survival of Dutch patients with advanced NSCLC and an EGFR del19 mutation was superior versus those harboring an L858R mutation. Osimertinib performed only better as first-line treatment in patients with del19 and BM. Funding: None.

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRASG12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRASG12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRASG12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRASG12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRASG12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs. FUNDING: Amgen.

The additional diagnostic value of virtual bronchoscopy navigation in patients with pulmonary nodules - The NAVIGATOR study.

BACKGROUND: The number of solitary pulmonary nodules to be evaluated is expected to increase and therefore we need to improve diagnostic and therapeutic tools to approach these nodules. To prevent patients from futile invasive procedures and receiving treatment without histological confirmation of cancer, we evaluated the value of virtual bronchoscopy navigation to obtain a diagnosis of the solitary pulmonary nodule in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In the NAVIGATOR single center, prospective, observational cohort study patients underwent a virtual bronchoscopy navigation procedure with or without guide sheet tunnelling to assess a solitary pulmonary nodule. Nodules were considered not accessible if a diagnosis could not be obtained by either by CT-guided transthoracic biopsy or conventional bronchoscopy. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and January 2022 35 patients underwent the virtual bronchoscopy navigation procedure. The overall diagnostic yield was 77% and was dependent on size of the nodule and chosen path, with highest yield in lesions with an airway path. Adverse events were few and manageable. CONCLUSION: Virtual bronchoscopy navigation with or without sheet tunnelling is a new technique with a good diagnostic yield, also in patients in whom previously performed procedures failed to establish a diagnosis and/or alternative procedures are considered not feasible based on expected yield and/or safety. Preventing futile or more invasive procedures like surgery or transthoracic punctures with a higher complication rate is beneficial for patients, and allowed treatment adaptation in two-third of the analyzed patient population.

NVL-520 Is a Selective, TRK-Sparing, and Brain-Penetrant Inhibitor of ROS1 Fusions and Secondary Resistance Mutations.

SIGNIFICANCE: The combined preclinical features of NVL-520 that include potent targeting of ROS1 and diverse ROS1 resistance mutations, high selectivity for ROS1 G2032R over TRK, and brain penetration mark the development of a distinct ROS1 TKI with the potential to surpass the limitations of earlier-generation TKIs for ROS1 fusion-positive patients. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 517.

Randomised controlled trial of first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus intercalated TKI with chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown interference between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in the cell cycle, thus reducing efficacy. In this randomised controlled trial we investigated whether intercalated erlotinib with chemotherapy was superior compared to erlotinib alone in untreated advanced EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Treatment-naïve patients with an activating EGFR mutation, ECOG performance score of 0-3 and adequate organ function were randomly assigned 1:1 to either four cycles of cisplatin-pemetrexed with intercalated erlotinib (day 2-16 out of 21 days per cycle) followed by pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance (CPE) or erlotinib monotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results: Between April 2014 and September 2016, 22 patients were randomised equally into both arms; the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 64 months. Median PFS was 13.7 months (95% CI 5.2-18.8) for CPE and 10.3 months (95% CI 7.1-15.5; hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.57) for erlotinib monotherapy; when compensating for number of days receiving erlotinib, PFS of the CPE arm was superior (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.83; p=0.02). ORR was 64% for CPE versus 55% for erlotinib monotherapy. Median overall survival was 31.7 months (95% CI 21.8-61.9 months) for CPE compared to 17.2 months (95% CI 11.5-45.5 months) for erlotinib monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.22-1.41 months). Patients treated with CPE had higher rates of treatment-related fatigue, anorexia, weight loss and renal toxicity. Conclusion: Intercalating erlotinib with cisplatin-pemetrexed provides a longer PFS compared to erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the expense of more toxicity.

Molecular imaging to support cancer immunotherapy.

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has reinvigorated the field of immuno-oncology. These monoclonal antibody-based therapies allow the immune system to recognize and eliminate malignant cells. This has resulted in improved survival of patients across several tumor types. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy therefore predictive biomarkers are important. There are only a few Food and Drug Administration-approved biomarkers to select patients for immunotherapy. These biomarkers do not consider the heterogeneity of tumor characteristics across lesions within a patient. New molecular imaging tracers allow for whole-body visualization with positron emission tomography (PET) of tumor and immune cell characteristics, and drug distribution, which might guide treatment decision making. Here, we summarize recent developments in molecular imaging of immune checkpoint molecules, such as PD-L1, PD-1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3. We discuss several molecular imaging approaches of immune cell subsets and briefly summarize the role of FDG-PET for evaluating cancer immunotherapy. The main focus is on developments in clinical molecular imaging studies, next to preclinical studies of interest given their potential translation to the clinic.

High dose osimertinib in patients with advanced stage EGFR exon 20 mutation-positive NSCLC: Results from the phase 2 multicenter POSITION20 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with life-threatening advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor an exon 20 deletion and/or insertion mutation (EGFRex20 + ) have limited effective treatment options. The high dose 3rd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib shows promising in vitro activity in EGFRex20 + NSCLC tumors. METHODS: The POSITION20 is a single arm phase II, multicenter study investigating 160 mg osimertinib in patients with EGFRex20+, T790M negative NSCLC. We allowed patients to be treatment naïve and to have asymptomatic brain metastases. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes were duration of response (DoR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment related adverse events (trAEs). RESULTS: From June 2018 to October 2021, 25 patients were enrolled across five centers in the Netherlands. The median age was 70 years (range, 47-87), 20 patients (80%) were women, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was 1 (range, 0-3). The exon 20 mutations were clustered between A763 and L777. The most common exon 20 mutations were p.(N771_H773dup) (n = 3) and p.(A767_V769dup) (n = 3). The ORR was 28% (95% CI, 12-49%), including seven partial responses, with a median DoR of 5.3 months (range, 2.7-27.6). The median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.1) and the median OS was 15.2 months (95% CI, 14.3-16.0). The most common trAEs were diarrhea (72%), dry skin (44%), and fatigue (44%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease in 14 patients (56%). CONCLUSION: The POSITION20 study showed modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFRex20 + NSCLC treated with 160 mg osimertinib, with a confirmed ORR of 28% and acceptable toxicity.