Osimertinib beyond disease progression in T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients: a multicenter study of clinicians' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: In most cases, T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients receiving osimertinib developed "non-drugable" progression, as the patients with common EGFR-sensitizing mutations were treated with first-line osimertinib. In both settings, chemotherapy represents the standard treatment and local ablative treatments (LATs) are potential useful options in the case of oligo-progression. METHODS: We conducted a study on "post-progression" (pp) outcomes of T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, according to the therapeutic strategy applied: osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs), "switched therapies" or best supportive care only (BSC). RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients were evaluated: 53 (36.8%) did not received post-progression treatments (BSC), while 91 (63.2%) patients received at least 1 subsequent treatment; 50 patients (54.9%) received osimertinib beyond disease progression [19 (20.9%) of them with adjunctive LATs] and 41 (45.1%) a switched therapy. Median ppPFS (progression-free survival) and median ppOS (overall survival) of patients who received osimertinib beyond progression vs. switched therapies were 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.35-0.92), p = 0.0239] and 11.3 months vs 7.8 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98), p = 0.0446]. Among patients who received osimertinib beyond progression with and without LATs median ppPFS was 6.4 months and 5.7 months, respectively [HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.18), p = 0.4560], while median ppOS was 20.2 months and 9.9 months, respectively [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.03), p = 0.0748]. At the univariate analysis, the only factor significantly related to the ppPFS was the therapeutic strategy in favor of osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). Moreover, the only variable which was significantly related to ppOS at the multivariate analysis was osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that in clinical practice, in case of "non-druggable" disease progression, maintaining osimertinib beyond progression (with adjunctive LATs) is an effective option.

Clinical outcomes to pemetrexed-based versus non-pemetrexed-based platinum doublets in patients with KRAS-mutant advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS mutation has been associated with enhanced dependency on the folate metabolism in preclinical studies. However, whether KRAS mutation correlates to increased sensitivity to pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC is unknown. METHODS: Patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who had a documented EGFR and ALK WT genotype with simultaneous KRAS mutation assessment were evaluated for clinical outcome to pemetrexed- and non-pemetrexed-based first-line platinum doublet according to KRAS mutation status. RESULTS: Of 356 patients identified, 138 harbored a KRAS mutation. Among KRAS-mutant NSCLCs, those treated with platinum/pemetrexed (81/138) had significantly lower ORR (30.9% versus 47.4%, P = 0.05), DCR (51.8% versus 71.9%, P = 0.02) and shorter median progression-free survival [mPFS 4.1 versus 7.1 months, HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.03-2.12), P = 0.03] and median overall survival [mOS 9.7 versus 26.9 months, HR 1.93 (95% CI 1.27-2.94), P = 0.002] compared to those who received a non-pemetrexed-based platinum doublet (57/138). No difference in ORR, DCR, mPFS and mOS was observed between KRAS WT patients who received a pemetrexed-based (124/218) versus non-pemetrexed base platinum doublets (94/218). After adjusting for performance status, age and the presence of brain metastasis at baseline, treatment with pemetrexed-based platinum doublet was associated with an increased risk of death [HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.12-4.63), P = 0.02] among KRAS-mutant patients in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma have a poorer outcome on pemetrexed-based first-line chemotherapy. Whether KRAS-mutant NSCLCs should be excluded from pemetrexed-containing regimens should be assessed prospectively.

First-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer patients, after hypersensitivity reaction to solvent-based taxanes: a single-institution experience.

One of the major challenges related to solvent-based taxanes administration in clinical practice is the high rate of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Nab-paclitaxel is a solvent-free, albumin-bound, paclitaxel, which minimize the risk of HSR occurrence. In this single-institution, retrospective analysis, we evaluated stage IIIc-IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients, treated with first-line carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab), after the occurrence of an HSR with solvent-based paclitaxel (and/or docetaxel). Between April 2012 and December 2018, ten patients (20.8%) received carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel (± bevacizumab) after the occurrence of an HSR to solvent-based taxanes. Among the evaluable patients, ORR was 100%. At median follow-up of 28.5 months, median PFS was 16.7 months, and median OS was 65.4 months, respectively. Median received dose intensity (DI) was 86% and 80% of the projected DI for nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin, respectively. There were no treatment-related grade 4 adverse events. Most relevant treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were: asthenia (10%), hypertransaminasemia (10%), neutropenia (20%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (10%). No HSR recurrence was observed. The high rate of HSR occurrence could limit first-line treatment options in clinical practice. Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel association could represent a valid treatment option in this setting.