KRAS and EGFR Amplifications Mediate Resistance to Rociletinib and Osimertinib in Acquired Afatinib-Resistant NSCLC Harboring Exon 19 Deletion/T790M in EGFR.

The critical T790M mutation in EGFR, which mediates resistance to first- and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib), has facilitated the development of third-generation mutation-selective EGFR TKIs (rociletinib and osimertinib). We previously reported heterogeneous afatinib-resistant mechanisms, including emergence of T790M-EGFR, and responses to third-generation EGFR TKIs. Here, we used afatinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma cells [AfaR (formerly AFR3) cells], carrying exon 19 deletion/T790M in EGFR To identify the novel resistance mechanisms in post-afatinib treatment, RocR1/RocR2 and OsiR1/OsiR2 cells were established using increasing concentrations of rociletinib and osimertinib, respectively. Attenuation of exon 19 deletion and T790M was confirmed in both rociletinib-resistant cells; in addition, EGFR and KRAS amplification was observed in RocR1 and RocR2, respectively. Significant KRAS amplification was observed in the osimertinib-resistant cell lines, indicating a linear and reversible increase with increased osimertinib concentrations in OsiR1 and OsiR2 cells. OsiR1 cells maintained osimertinib resistance with KRAS amplification after osimertinib withdrawal for 2 months. OsiR2 cells exhibited KRAS attenuation, and osimertinib sensitivity was entirely recovered. Phospho-EGFR (Y1068) and growth factor receptor-bound protein 2 (GRB2)/son of sevenless homolog 1 (SOS1) complex was found to mediate osimertinib resistance in OsiR1 cells with sustained KRAS activation. After 2 months of osimertinib withdrawal, this complex was dissociated, and the EGFR signal, but not the GRB2/SOS1 signal, was activated. Concomitant inhibition of MAPK kinase and EGFR could overcome osimertinib resistance. Thus, we identified a heterogeneous acquired resistance mechanism for third-generation EGFR TKIs, providing insights into the development of novel treatment strategies.

Coadministration of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents with irinotecan is a risk factor for irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome in Japanese patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cholinergic syndrome is an acute adverse event frequently observed in patients administered irinotecan, and can sometimes negatively affect their quality of life. In some manifestations of the syndrome such as bradycardia, careful monitoring of patients is advised. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the risk factors associated with irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome in Japanese patients with cancer. METHODS: Patients who received irinotecan-based chemotherapy between April 2014 and June 2018 were examined. Patient backgrounds and clinical data during the first cycle of an irinotecan-containing regimen, including cholinergic syndrome manifestation within 24 h after the start of treatment, were collected from medical records. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the risk of irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome. RESULTS: Among 179 patients administered an irinotecan-containing regimen, 51 experienced cholinergic syndrome after the initiation of treatment. The most common symptom was sweating followed by diarrhea, abdominal pain, lacrimation, and nasal discharge. 42 patients developed symptoms of cholinergic syndrome during their first treatment with irinotecan. Multivariate analyses revealed that the incidences of cholinergic syndrome in patients administered 2 or 3 chemotherapeutic agents; i.e., irinotecan plus 1 or 2 other cytotoxic anticancer drug(s), were significantly higher than that in patients administered irinotecan alone [odds ratio (OR) 4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-12, p = 0.0053 and OR 4.50, 95% CI 1.5-14, p = 0.0093, respectively]. The addition of a molecularly targeted drug did not affect the incidence of cholinergic syndrome. CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome increased concomitantly with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents administered.

Cost-minimization analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens given to patients with colorectal cancer in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Consideration of medical costs as well as effectiveness and adverse events is rapidly been becoming an important factor in the selection of chemotherapy regimens. However, practical data on the costs of chemotherapy are scarce. We clinically estimated the medical costs of 6 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer on the basis of clinical and cost-related data and compared their cost-effectiveness by cost-minimization analyses. METHODS: All patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer between April 2012 and May 2015 at four hospitals affiliated with Showa University were studied retrospectively. Clinical and cost data related to adjuvant chemotherapy were collected from medical records and medical fee receipt data, respectively. Six adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were studied: capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOX); 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), ℓ-leucovorin (LV), and oxaliplatin (modified FOLFOX6 [mFOLFOX6]); 5-FU and LV (5-FU/LV); tegafur and uracil (UFT), and LV (UFT/LV); capecitabine; and tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil (S-1). The regimens were divided into 2 groups according to whether or not they contained oxaliplatin because of the difference in effectiveness. Cost-minimization analyses, where relative costs of regimens showing equivalent effectiveness were simply compared, were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the regimens in each group. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients with colorectal cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy during the study period. Fifty-seven patients were treated with CapeOX, 10 with mFOLFOX6, 38 with UFT/LV, 20 with capecitabine, and 29 with S-1. No patient received 5-FU/LV. The total costs of oxaliplatin-containing regimens were significantly higher than those of oxaliplatin non-containing regimens. The high cost of oxaliplatin, but not the costs of drugs or various tests for the treatment of adverse events, was the primary reason for the higher costs of the oxaliplatin-containing regimens. The cost-effectiveness of the oxaliplatin-containing regimens CapeOX and mFOLFOX6 were comparable. Among the oxaliplatin non-containing regimens, the cost-effectiveness of S-1 and capecitabine was superior to that of UFT/LV. CONCLUSION: Thus, we provided the cost-effectiveness data of 5 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer based on practical clinical and cost data from Japanese patients. The results can be included as a factor in regimen selection because these results would represent the real world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a retrospective observational study and does not include any health care interventions. Therefore, we did not register the protocol of this study.