Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Amivantamab for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Amivantamab-vmjw (amivantamab) is a bispecific EGFR/MET antibody approved for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, after prior therapy. Nevertheless, the benefits and safety of amivantamab in other EGFR-mutant lung cancer, with or without osimertinib, and with concurrent radiation therapy, are less known. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Lung Cancer GEMINI, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Stanford Cancer Center's database for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with amivantamab, not on a clinical trial. The data analyzed included initial response, duration of treatment, and concomitant radiation safety in overall population and prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received amivantamab. Median age was 65 (31-81) years old; 72.1% were female; and 77% were patients with never smoking history. Median number of prior lines of therapies was four. On the basis of tumor's EGFR mutation, 39 patients were in the classical mutation cohort, 15 patients in the exon 20 cohort, and seven patients in the atypical cohort. There were 37 patients (58.7%) who received amivantamab concomitantly with osimertinib and 25 patients (39.1%) who received concomitant radiation. Furthermore, 54 patients were assessable for response in the overall population; 19 patients (45.2%) had clinical response and disease control rate (DCR) was 64.3%. In the classical mutation cohort of the 33 assessable patients, 12 (36.4%) had clinical response and DCR was 48.5%. In the atypical mutation cohort, six of the seven patients (85.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 100%. Of the 13 assessable patients in the exon 20 cohort, five patients (35.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 64.3%. Adverse events reported with amivantamab use were similar as previously described in product labeling. No additional toxicities were noted when amivantamab was given with radiation with or without osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world multicenter analysis revealed that amivantamab is a potentially effective treatment option for patients with EGFR mutations outside of exon 20 insertion mutations. The combination of osimertinib with amivantamab is safe and feasible. Radiation therapy also seems safe when administered sequentially or concurrently with amivantamab.

Brief Report: Clinical Response, Toxicity, and Resistance Mechanisms to Osimertinib Plus MET Inhibitors in Patients With EGFR-Mutant MET-Amplified NSCLC.

Introduction: MET amplification is a known resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition has been reported with success in overcoming such resistance and inducing clinical benefit. Resistance mechanisms to dual EGFR-MET inhibition require further investigation and characterization. Methods: Patients with NSCLC with both MET amplification and EGFR mutation who have received crizotinib, capmatinib, savolitinib, or tepotinib plus osimertinib (OSI) after progression on OSI at MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this study. Molecular profiling was completed by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Radiological response was assessed on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results: From March 2016 to March 2022, 23 treatments with dual MET inhibitor and osi were identified with a total of 20 patients included. Three patients received capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Median age was 64 (38-89) years old and 75% were female. MET amplification was detected by FISH in 14 patients in the tissue, NGS in 10 patients, and circulating tumor DNA in three patients. Median MET gene copy number was 13.6 (6.4-20). Overall response rate was 34.8% (eight of 23). In assessable patients, tumor shrinkage was observed in 82.4% (14 of 17). Median time on treatment was 27 months. Two of three patients responded to capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition was overall well tolerated. Two patients on crizotinib plus OSI and one pt on capmatinib plus OSI discontinued therapy due to pneumonitis. One pt discontinued crizotinib plus OSI due to gastrointestinal toxicity. Six patients were still on double TKI treatment. At disease progression to dual EGFR-MET inhibition, FISH and NGS on tumor and plasma were completed in six patients. Notable resistance mechanisms observed include acquired MET D1246H (n = 1), acquired EGFR C797S (n = 2), FGFR2 fusion (n = 1, concurrent with C797S), and EGFR G796S (n = 1, concurrent with C797S). Four patients lost MET amplification. Conclusions: Dual EGFR and MET inhibition yielded high clinical response rate after progression on OSI. Resistance mechanisms to EGFR-MET double TKI inhibition include MET secondary mutation, EGFR secondary mutation, or loss of MET amplification.

HRAS Mutations Define a Distinct Subgroup in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), HRAS mutation is a new actionable oncogene driver. We aimed to evaluate HRAS mutational variants, comutation profile, and survival outcomes of this molecularly defined population. METHODS: We leveraged four deidentified patient data sets with HRAS-mutant HNSCC, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Kura Oncology, Inc trial, Foundation Medicine, and American Association for Cancer Research GENIE v.12. Patient demographic information and clinical courses were extracted, when available, in addition to HRAS mutation type and co-occurring mutations. Survival outcomes were analyzed (Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients with HRAS-mutant HNSCC were identified from the four data sets. Median age ranged from 55 to 65 years, with a higher frequency in male patients (64%); the majority of HRAS-mutant HNSCC occurred in human papillomavirus-negative HNSCC. HRAS mutation patterns were similar across data sets; G12S was the most common (29%). Treatment responses to tipifarnib were not codon-specific. Compared with wild-type, significantly co-occurring mutations with HRAS were Casp8 (Fisher's exact test, P < .00013), TERT (P < .0085), and NOTCH1 (P < .00013). Analysis of clinical courses from the MD Anderson Cancer Center and Kura Oncology, Inc data sets demonstrated poor clinical outcomes with a high rate of recurrence following primary definitive treatment (50%-67% relapse < 6 months) and short disease-free survival (4.0 months; 95% CI, 1.0 to 36.0) and overall survival (OS; 15.0 months; 95% CI, 6.0 to 52.0). Use of tipifarnib in this data set demonstrated improved OS (25.5 months; 95% CI, 18.0 to 48.0). CONCLUSION: Oncogenic mutations in HRAS occur in 3%-4% of HNSCC, with G12S being the most frequent. Without targeted therapy, patients with HRAS-mutant HNSCC had poor clinic outcomes; observable trend toward improvement in OS has been noted in cohorts receiving treatments such as tipifarnib. The comutation pattern of HRAS-mutant in HNSCC is distinct, which may provide insight to future therapeutic combination strategies.

Limited Benefit from the Addition of Immunotherapy to Chemotherapy in TKI-Refractory EGFR-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy in EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients whose tumor developed resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is not thoroughly investigated. The goal of this retrospective cohort study is to assess the clinical efficiency of immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled LUAD patients with EGFR sensitive mutations whose tumor had acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs and received systemic treatment with chemotherapy (chemo; n = 84), chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy (chemoIO; n = 30), chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with or without IO (withBev; n = 42), and IO monotherapy (IO-mono; n = 22). Clinical progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Associations of clinical characteristics with outcomes were assessed using univariable and multi-covariate Cox Proportional Hazards regression models. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients (median age = 63.3; 57.9% females) with a median follow-up time of 42.0 (Interquartile range: 22.9-67.8) months were enrolled. There was no significant difference in PFS between chemoIO vs. chemo groups (5.3 vs. 4.8 months, p = 0.8). Compared to the chemo group, patients who received withBev therapy trended towards better PFS (6.1 months vs. 4.8; p = 0.3; HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.52-1.20), while patients treated with IO-mono had inferior PFS (2.2 months; p = 0.001; HR 2.22; 95% CI: 1.37-3.59). Furthermore, PD-L1 level was not associated with PFS benefit in the chemoIO group. Patients with EGFR-mutant LUAD with high PD-L1 (≥50%) had shorter PFS (5.8 months) than non-EGFR/ALK LUAD patients who received chemoIO (12.8 months, p = 0.002; HR 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08-0.56) as first-line treatment. Chemotherapy-based therapy rendered similar benefit to patients with either EGFR exon19 deletion vs. L858R in the LUAD. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis revealed that immunotherapy provided limited additional benefit to chemotherapy in TKI-refractory EGFR-mutant LUAD. Chemotherapy alone or combined with bevacizumab remain good choices for patients with actionable EGFR mutations.

Induction chemotherapy with or without erlotinib in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma amenable for surgical resection.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgery has been utilized widely for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). We evaluated neoadjuvant erlotinib with platinum-docetaxel vs. placebo with platinum-docetaxel in stage III-IVB OSCC patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed stage III, IVA, IVB (AJCC 7th) OSCC amenable to surgical resection were included. Patients were randomized to receive up to 3 cycles of chemotherapy with concurrent erlotinib or placebo, followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was major pathologic response (MPR) rate, secondary endpoints included safety, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients received at least one cycle of treatment and 47 were evaluable with surgical resection. MPR rate was not different between erlotinib (30%, 7/23) and placebo arms (41.7%, 10/24) (p=0.55). At median follow up of 26.5 months, there was no difference on OS or PFS between groups. Patients who received erlotinib with chemotherapy and achieved MPR (n=7) had no recurrence. The treatment-related adverse event rates were not different between the two groups (96% vs. 96%). However, rash, mostly low grade, was more common in the erlotinib arm (79% vs. 50%). Transcriptomic analysis in the pre-treatment samples indicated that genes in protein glycosylation and Wnt signaling pathways were associated with benefit in those treated with erlotinib plus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of erlotinib to platinum-taxane chemotherapy was well-tolerated but did not induce higher rates of MPR or PFS or OS survival benefit. Patients who received chemotherapy with erlotinib and achieved major pathological responses had excellent clinical outcome.