Discordance between GCIG CA-125 progression and RECIST progression in the CALYPSO trial of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: CA-125 alone is widely used to diagnose progressive disease (PD) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) on chemotherapy. However, there are increasing concerns regarding its accuracy. We assessed concordance between progression defined by CA-125 and RECIST using data from the CALYPSO trial. METHODS: We computed concordance rates for PD by CA-125 and RECIST to determine the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). RESULTS: Of 769 (79%) evaluable participants, 387 had CA-125 PD, where only 276 had concordant RECIST PD (PPV 71%, 95% CI 67-76%). For 382 without CA-125 PD, 255 had RECIST PD but 127 did not (NPV 33%, 95% CI 29-38). There were significant differences in NPV according to baseline CA-125 (≤100 vs >100: 42% vs 25%, P < 0.001); non-measurable vs measurable disease (51% vs 26%, P < 0.001); and platinum-free-interval (>12 vs 6-12 months: 41% vs 14%, P < 0.001). We observed falling CA-125 levels in 78% of patients with RECIST PD and CA-125 non-PD. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 in 3 women with PSROC have RECIST PD but not CA-125 PD by GCIG criteria. Monitoring CA-125 levels alone is not reliable for detecting PD. Further research is required to investigate the survival impact of local therapy in radiological detected early asymptomatic PD.

A signal-seeking Phase 2 study of olaparib and durvalumab in advanced solid cancers with homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of PARP plus PD-L1 inhibition (olaparib + durvalumab, O + D) in patients with advanced solid, predominantly rare cancers harbouring homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 48 patients were treated with O + D, 16 with BRCA1/2 alterations (group 1) and 32 with other select HRR alterations (group 2). Overall, 32 (66%) patients had rare or less common cancers. The primary objective of this single-arm Phase II trial was a progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted on archival tumour tissue and serial bloods. RESULTS: The PFS6 rate was 35% and 38% with durable objective tumour responses (OTR) in 3(19%) and 3(9%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Rare cancers achieving an OTR included cholangiocarcinoma, perivascular epithelioid cell (PEComa), neuroendocrine, gallbladder and endometrial cancer. O + D was safe, with five serious adverse events related to the study drug(s) in 3 (6%) patients. A higher proportion of CD38 high B cells in the blood and higher CD40 expression in tumour was prognostic of survival. CONCLUSIONS: O + D demonstrated no new toxicity concerns and yielded a clinically meaningful PFS6 rate and durable OTRs across several cancers with HRR defects, including rare cancers.

The validity of progression-free survival 2 as a surrogate trial end point for overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard end point for oncology trials. However, the availability of multiple therapeutic options after progression and crossover to receive investigational agents confound and delay OS data maturation. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on first subsequent therapy, has been proposed as a surrogate for OS. Using a meta-analytic approach, the authors aimed to assess the association between OS and PFS-2 and compare this with progression-free survival 1 (PFS-1) and the objective response rate (ORR). METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized trials of systemic therapies in advanced solid tumors that reported PFS-2 as a prespecified end point. Correlations between OS and PFS-2, OS and PFS-1, and OS and ORR as hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were assessed via linear regression weighted by trial size. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials were included, and they comprised 19,031 patients across 8 tumor types. PFS-2 displayed a moderate correlation with OS (r = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.69). Conversely, correlations of ORR (r = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.00-0.13) and PFS-1 (r = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.00-0.33) were poor. The findings for PFS-2 were consistent for subgroup analyses by treatment type (immunotherapy vs nonimmunotherapy: r = 0.67 vs 0.67), survival post progression (<12 vs ≥12 months: r = 0.86 vs 0.79), and percentage not receiving subsequent treatment (<50% vs ≥50%: r = 0.70 vs 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse tumors and therapies, the treatment effect on PFS-2 correlated moderately with the treatment effect on OS. PFS-2 performed consistently better than PFS-1 and ORR, regardless of postprogression treatment and postprogression survival. PFS-2 should be included as a key trial end point in future randomized trials of solid tumors.

PD-L1 expression as a prognostic marker in patients treated with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: In metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), PD-L1 expression is associated with benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. However, the significance of PD-L1 expression in chemotherapy-treated patients is uncertain. Methods: Using the chemotherapy control arm of first-line randomized trials, a meta-analysis of the association between efficacy outcomes and PD-L1 status was performed, stratified by assay due to inter-assay differences. Results: Across 12 trials and 4378 patients, overall survival (OS) was superior in high PD-L1 versus negative tumors and low versus negative according to 22C3/28-8 assays. When classified by SP142 assay, no significant difference in response or survival was seen between PD-L1 groups. Conclusion: In mNSCLC, high PD-L1-expressing tumors are associated with longer OS and improved objective rate when treated with chemotherapy. Inter-assay variability impacts outcome results.

Biomarkers are naturally occurring cancer traits that can predict certain events. PD-L1 expression is a biomarker used in advanced lung cancer to predict benefit from immunotherapy. However, the association between PD-L1expression and chemotherapy is unclear. The authors analyzed data from 14 large clinical trials and found that PD-L1 expression could also be used to define a type of lung cancer that responds better to chemotherapy.

Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta-analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild-type BRCA but homologous recombinant-deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant-proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression-free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17-0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild-type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.56); and, in those who had wild-type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression-free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.

Benchmarking single-arm studies against historical controls from non-small cell lung cancer trials - an empirical analysis of bias.

Background: Recent trials of novel agents in 'rare' molecular subtypes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have used single-arm trial designs and benchmarked outcomes against historical controls. We assessed the consistency of historical control outcomes using docetaxel data from published NSCLC randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Material and methods: Advanced NSCLC RCTs including a docetaxel monotherapy arm were included. Heterogeneity in tumor objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and correlations between outcomes and year of trial commencement were assessed.Results: Among 63 trials (N = 10,633) conducted between 2000 and 2017, ORR ranged from 0% to 26% (I2 = 76.1%, pheterogeneity < .0001). Mean of the median PFS was 3.0 months (range: 1.4-6.4), 3-month PFS ranged from 25% to 85% (I2 = 86.0%, pheterogeneity < .0001). Mean of the median OS was 9.1 months (range: 4.7-22.9), 9-month OS ranged from 23% to 79% (I2 = 83.0%, pheterogeneity < .0001). Each later year of trial commencement was associated with 0.3% (p = .046), 0.5% (p = .11) and 0.9% (p = .001) improvement in ORR, 3-month PFS and 9-month OS rates, respectively.Conclusions: There was significant heterogeneity and an improving trend in docetaxel outcomes across trials conducted over 20 years. Benchmarking biomarker-targeted agents against historical controls may not be a valid approach to replace RCTs. Innovative study designs involving a concurrent control arm should be considered.

The impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio on risk reclassification of patients with advanced renal cell cancer to guide risk-directed therapy.

Background: An elevated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with poor prognosis in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We examined whether the addition of NLR improves the risk reclassification of advanced RCC using current prognostic tools from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).Methods: Using randomised data from the COMPARZ trial of first-line pazopanib vs. sunitinib in advanced RCC, we constructed multivariable models containing MSKCC and IMDC predictor variables with and without NLR. We evaluated model discrimination using the concordance index (C-index). We computed net reclassification improvement to quantify patient reclassification into low/intermediate/poor risk groups with the addition of NLR.Results: Of 1102 patients, NLR ≥ 5 (16%) was associated with shorter survival adjusting for MSKCC variables (adjusted HR 1.89, p < .001). Adding NLR to MSKCC variables increased the C-index by 0.01. Among patients who died before 24 months (N = 415), adding NLR reclassified 8% and 2% to a higher and lower risk category, respectively. Among those alive at 24 months (N = 636), adding NLR reclassified 4% and 1% to a higher and lower risk category, respectively. This finding translates to a net benefit of eight additional patients who die within 24 months correctly identified as poor risk per 1000 patients tested. We obtained similar results when evaluating NLR with IMDC variables.Conclusions: NLR does not substantially improve risk reclassification over pre-existing prognostic tools. MSKCC and IMDC classifications remain the standard for guiding risk-directed therapy and trial stratification of patients with advanced RCC.

Phase 1 trial of olaparib and oral cyclophosphamide in BRCA breast cancer, recurrent BRCA ovarian cancer, non-BRCA triple-negative breast cancer, and non-BRCA ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a Phase 1 study to evaluate safety and activity of olaparib tablets and oral cyclophosphamide. METHODS: Patients had metastatic breast cancer (BC) or recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), performance status 0-2, and ≤3 lines of prior therapy. Patients were treated using a dose escalation strategy with cohort expansion once maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Dose level 1 (DL1): olaparib 300 mg bid, cyclophosphamide 50 mg on days 1, 3, and 5, weekly. DL2: olaparib 300 mg bid, cyclophosphamide 50 mg, days 1-5 weekly. RESULTS: Of 32 patients, 23 had HGSOC (germline BRCA mutation [gBRCAm] 70%) and 9 had BC (gBRCAm 67%). Four were treated at DL1 and 28 at DL2, the MTD. Haematological adverse events (AEs) were most common: grade 3/4 AEs: lymphopenia 75%, anaemia 31%, neutropenia 37%, thrombocytopenia 47%. Two permanently discontinued treatment due to haematological AEs. In BC, no objective response was reported. Unconfirmed objective response was 48% and 64% for all HGSOC and gBRCAm subset, respectively. CA125 responses were 70% (all HGSOC) and 92% (gBRCAm). CONCLUSIONS: In HGSOC and BC, olaparib 300 mg bid and cyclophosphamide 50 mg on days 1-5 weekly were tolerable and active, particularly in gBRCAm, and is worthy of further investigation.

The impact of ethnicity on efficacy and toxicity of cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Adding cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced breast cancer but the impact of ethnicity on efficacy and toxicity is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative treatment efficacy and toxicity of endocrine therapy with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and compare between Asian/non-Asian subgroups. METHOD: This meta-analysis included published first-line randomized trials comparing CDK4/6 inhibitor-endocrine therapy versus endocrine monotherapy. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the overall population and Asian/non-Asian subgroups were extracted. The inverse-variance-weighted method was used to pool treatment estimates of PFS. RESULTS: Four trials (N = 2499) were included. Patients received combination CDK4/6 inhibitor-endocrine therapy (N = 1441; ribociclib, [46.4%]; palbociclib, [30.8%]; or abemaciclib, [22.8%]) versus endocrine monotherapy (N = 1058). CDK4/6 inhibitor-endocrine therapy was associated with prolonged PFS compared with endocrine monotherapy (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.50-0.62). In Asians (N = 492), PFS HR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.29-0.51, P < 0.0001). In non-Asians (N = 2007), PFS HR was 0.62 (95% CI 0.54-0.71, P < 0.0001). There was a significant treatment-by-ethnicity interaction (P = 0.002). Toxicity data by ethnic subgroup were only available from two trials (n = 1334) with no convincing evidence that the risk of toxicity between CDK4/6 inhibitor-endocrine therapy and endocrine monotherapy varied by ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Adding CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy prolongs PFS compared to endocrine therapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced breast cancer. The magnitude of PFS benefit is ethnicity-dependent but there is no interethnic differences in relative treatment-related toxicities. These findings may assist in the design and interpretation of trials, inform economic analyses, and stimulate pharmacogenomic research.

When do patient reported quality of life indicators become prognostic in breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: Various patient reported quality-of-life indicators are independently prognostic for survival in metastatic breast cancer and other cancers. The same measures recorded at first diagnosis of early breast cancer carry no corresponding prognostic information. The present study aims to assess at what time in the disease evolution the prognostic association appears. METHODS: Among 8024 patients enrolled in one of seven randomized controlled trials in early-stage breast cancer 3247 had a breast cancer relapse after a median follow-up of 12.1 years. Of these 677 had completed QL indicator assessments within defined windows 1, 2 or 3 months prior to relapse. We performed Cox regression analyses using these assessments and using identical instruments after relapse. All analyses were stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: QL indicators in the months before relapse were not significantly prognostic for subsequent survival with the possibly chance exception of mood at the second month before relapse. After relapse, physical well-being was statistically significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). This prognostic significance increased in later post-relapse assessments. Similar findings were observed using patient-reported indicators for nausea and vomiting, appetite, coping effort, and health perception. CONCLUSIONS: Before cancer relapse, QL indicators were not generally prognostic for subsequent survival. After relapse, QL indicators substantially predicted OS, with a stronger association later in the course of relapsed disease. Simple patient perception of disease burden seems unlikely to explain this sudden change: rather the patient's awareness of disease relapse must contribute.

Safety and efficacy of single-agent bevacizumab-containing therapy in elderly patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: Subgroup analysis of the randomised phase III AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The AURELIA trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with bevacizumab added to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: Patients with PROC were randomised to receive investigator-selected single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Post-hoc exploratory analyses assessed efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes according to age <65 versus ≥65years. RESULTS: In the 133 patients (37%) aged ≥65years, baseline hypertension was more frequent and ascites was less common than in patients <65years. The magnitude of PFS benefit from bevacizumab was similar in patients ≥65 versus <65years (hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.64] versus 0.49 [95% CI, 0.37-0.64], respectively, treatment-age interaction p=0.58), with similar improvements in response rates. Grade≥3 hypertension was more common with bevacizumab than chemotherapy alone in both subgroups, and more common in older than younger patients irrespective of treatment. However, there was no excess of other adverse events of specific interest for bevacizumab, including venous thromboembolic events, in older patients. More patients receiving bevacizumab in the younger but not the older subgroup showed improved gastrointestinal/abdominal symptoms. CONCLUSION: In exploratory analyses, PFS and response rate improvement with bevacizumab were consistent in older and younger patients. Grade≥3 hypertension was more common in elderly bevacizumab-treated patients; careful monitoring is recommended. Overall, bevacizumab-containing therapy was well tolerated in a selected population aged ≥65years, suggesting a favourable benefit:risk profile. However, geriatric assessments are needed to improve selection of elderly patients potentially gaining symptom and quality of life improvements from bevacizumab-containing therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00976911.

Impact of secondary cytoreductive surgery on survival in patients with platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: analysis of the CALYPSO trial.

OBJECTIVE: The role of secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCR) in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) remains controversial. The overall survival (OS) benefits for surgery reported in observational studies may be due to the selection of patients with better prognosis. METHODS: Using data from the CALYPSO trial, OS of patients who had SCR was compared to those treated with chemotherapy alone. Multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for prognostic factors. We also tested for an interaction between baseline prognostic groupings and the benefit of surgery. RESULTS: Of the 975 patients randomised in CALYPSO, 19% had SCR and 80% had chemotherapy alone. OS was longer for the SCR group than for chemotherapy alone (median, 49.9 vs. 29.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.68; P = 0.004). For patients with SCR, the 3-year OS was 72% for those with no measurable disease, and 28% if residual tumour was larger than 5 cm. Patients with good prognostic features benefited the most from SCR (HR 0.43; P < 0.001). The benefit of SCR was less in patients with poorer prognostic features (test of trend P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SCR was associated with improved OS in platinum-sensitive ROC, particularly in patients with favourable prognostic characteristics. However, these findings may be due to selection bias, and hence randomised trials are still essential.

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials.

Advances in genomics have enabled anticancer therapies to be tailored to target specific genomic alterations. Single-arm trials (SATs), including those incorporated within umbrella, basket, and platform trials, are widely adopted when it is not feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials in rare biomarker-defined subpopulations. External controls (ECs), defined as control arm data derived outside the clinical trial, have gained renewed interest as a strategy to supplement evidence generated from SATs to allow comparative analysis. There are increasing examples demonstrating the application of EC in precision oncology trials. The prospective application of EC in conducting comparative studies is associated with distinct methodological challenges, the specific considerations for EC use in biomarker-defined subpopulations have not been adequately discussed, and a formal framework is yet to be established. In this review, we present a framework for conducting a prospective comparative analysis using EC. Key steps are (1) defining the purpose of using EC to address the study question, (2) determining if the external data are fit for purpose, (3) developing a transparent study protocol and a statistical analysis plan, and (iv) interpreting results and drawing conclusions on the basis of a prespecified hypothesis. We specify the considerations required for the biomarker-defined subpopulations, which include (1) specifying the comparator and biomarker status of the comparator group, (2) defining lines of treatment, (3) assessment of the biomarker testing panels used, and (4) assessment of cohort stratification in tumor-agnostic studies. We further discuss novel clinical trial designs and statistical techniques leveraging EC to propose future directions to advance evidence generation and facilitate drug development in precision oncology.

Validity and Efficiency of Progression-Free Survival-2 as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in Advanced Cancer Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS)-2, defined as the time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy, is potentially a more reliable surrogate than PFS for overall survival (OS), but will require longer follow-up and a larger sample size. We sought to compare the validity and efficiency, defined as proportional increase in follow-up time and sample size, of PFS-2 to PFS. METHODS: We performed an electronic search to identify randomized trials of advanced solid tumors reporting PFS, PFS-2, and OS as prespecified end points. Only studies that had protocols that defined measurement of PFS-2 and follow-up for patients after first disease progression were included. We compared correlations in the relative treatment effect for OS with PFS and PFS-2. We reconstructed individual patient data from survival curves to estimate time to statistical significance (TSS) of the relative treatment effect. We further computed the sample size (person-year [PY] follow-up) required to reach statistical significance. RESULTS: Across the 42 analysis units and 21,255 patients, the correlation of the relative treatment effect between OS and PFS-2, r, was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.80) and r = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74) for OS and PFS. The median differences in TSS between OS with PFS, OS with PFS-2, and PFS with PFS-2 were 16.59 (95% CI, 4.48 to not reached [NR]), 10.0 (95% CI, 2.2 to NR), and 4.31 (95% CI, 2.92 to 13.13) months, respectively. The median difference in PYs required to reach statistical significance for PFS-2 over PFS was 156 (95% CI, 82 to 500) PYs, equivalent to an estimated median 12.7% increase in PYs. CONCLUSION: PFS-2 offers improved correlation with OS than PFS with a modest increase in follow-up time and sample size. PFS-2 should be considered as a primary end point in future trials of advanced cancers.

A Phase II trial of alternating osimertinib and gefitinib therapy in advanced EGFR-T790M positive non-small cell lung cancer: OSCILLATE.

In this phase II, single arm trial (ACTRN12617000720314), we investigate if alternating osimertinib and gefitinib would delay the development of resistance to osimertinib in advanced, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation (n = 47) by modulating selective pressure on resistant clones. The primary endpoint is progression free-survival (PFS) rate at 12 months, and secondary endpoints include: feasibility of alternating therapy, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. The 12-month PFS rate is 38% (95% CI 27.5-55), not meeting the pre-specified primary endpoint. Serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis reveals decrease and clearance of the original activating EGFR and EGFR-T790M mutations which are prognostic of clinical outcomes. In 73% of participants, loss of T790M ctDNA is observed at progression and no participants have evidence of the EGFR C797S resistance mutation following the alternating regimen. These findings highlight the challenges of treatment strategies designed to modulate clonal evolution and the clinical importance of resistance mechanisms beyond suppression of selected genetic mutations in driving therapeutic escape to highly potent targeted therapies.

CNS Efficacy of Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: We report CNS efficacy of first-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib monotherapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the phase III FLAURA2 study according to baseline CNS metastasis status. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed (combination) or osimertinib monotherapy until disease progression or discontinuation. Brain scans were performed in all patients at baseline and progression and at scheduled assessments until progression for patients with baseline CNS metastases; scans were assessed by neuroradiologist CNS blinded independent central review (BICR). RESULTS: On the basis of baseline CNS BICR, 118 of 279 (combination) and 104 of 278 (monotherapy) randomly assigned patients had ≥one measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesion and were included in the CNS full analysis set (cFAS); 40 of 118 and 38 of 104 had ≥one measurable target CNS lesion and were included in the post hoc CNS evaluable-for-response set (cEFR). In the cFAS, the hazard ratio (HR) for CNS progression or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33 to 1.01). In patients without baseline CNS metastases, the HR for CNS progression or death was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.04). In the cFAS, CNS objective response rates (ORRs; 95% CI) were 73% (combination; 64 to 81) versus 69% (monotherapy; 59 to 78); 59% versus 43% had CNS complete response (CR). In the cEFR, CNS ORRs (95% CI) were 88% (73 to 96) versus 87% (72 to 96); 48% versus 16% had CNS CR. CONCLUSION: Osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed demonstrated improved CNS efficacy compared with osimertinib monotherapy, including delaying CNS progression, irrespective of baseline CNS metastasis status. These data support this combination as a new first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

Management Paradigm of Central Nervous System Metastases in NSCLC: An Australian Perspective.

Life-prolonging central nervous system active systemic therapies for metastatic NSCLC have increased the complexity of managing brain metastases (BMs). Australian medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons discussed the evidence guiding the diverse clinical approaches to the management of BM in NSCLC. The Australian context is broadly applicable to other jurisdictions; therefore, we have documented these discussions as principles with broader applications. Patient management was stratified according to clinical and radiologic factors under two broad classifications of newly diagnosed BMs: symptomatic and asymptomatic. Other important considerations include the number and location of metastases, tumor histotypes, molecular subtype, and treatment purpose. Careful consideration of the pace and burden of symptoms, risk of worsening neurologic function at a short interval, and extracranial disease burden should determine whether central nervous system active systemic therapies are used alone or in combination with local therapies (surgery with or without radiation therapy). Most clinical trial evidence currently focuses on historical treatment options or a single treatment modality rather than the optimal sequencing of multiple modern therapies; therefore, an individualized approach is key in a rapidly changing therapeutic landscape.

Testing for EGFR Variants in Pleural and Pericardial Effusion Cell-Free DNA in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Molecular testing in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is commonly limited by inadequate tumor sample. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) genotyping as a complementary test is specific but only moderately sensitive. Genotyping of cfDNA in pleural and pericardial effusion (PE-cfDNA) can further optimize molecular diagnostic yield and reduce the need for repeated biopsies. Objective: To prospectively validate droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) for detection of sensitizing EGFR variants and acquired Thr790Met variant (T790M) from PE-cfDNA in patients with NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective diagnostic validation study was conducted between September 6, 2016, and January 21, 2021 at 2 major Hong Kong cancer centers. Patients with advanced NSCLC with both wild-type and variant EGFR status and exudative PE who underwent thoracocentesis or pericardiocentesis were randomly enrolled. Patients were either EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) naive (cohort 1) or EGFR-TKI treated but osimertinib naive (cohort 2). Enrolled patients underwent pleural- or pericardial-fluid and blood sampling for ddPCR EGFR testing. EGFR status results with ddPCR testing of PE-cfDNA and blood were compared with EGFR status in matched tumor biopsy or PE cell block samples. Main Outcomes and Measures: Specificity, sensitivity, and concordance of PE-cfDNA for detection of sensitizing EGFR variants and acquired T790M variation. Results: Among 171 patients (54% female) enrolled, there were 104 in cohort 1 and 67 in cohort 2. In cohort 1, 37% (38/102) were EGFR-variant positive; PE-cfDNA showed 97% sensitivity (95% CI, 92%-100%), 97% specificity (95% CI, 93%-100%), and 97% concordance (ĸ = 0.94, P < .001) for the detection of sensitizing EGFR variants. It was more sensitive than plasma in detecting sensitizing EGFR variants (97% vs 74%, P < .001). In cohort 2, 38% (15 of 40) were positive for the EGFR T790M variant; PE-cfDNA showed 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 69%-100%), 60% specificity (95% CI, 41%-79%), and 70% concordance (ĸ = 0.42, P = .004) for acquired T790M. The EGFR T790M variant was detected in 51% of PE-cfDNA vs 25% of PE cell block samples. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, EGFR variants could be accurately detected from PE-cfDNA in patients with NSCLC. More EGFR T790M was detected in PE-cfDNA than in guideline-recommended PE cell block preparations. These results suggest that PE-cfDNA can complement plasma and tumor genotyping for detecting EGFR variants in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Extrapolating evidence for molecularly targeted therapies from common to rare cancers: a scoping review of methodological guidance.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is increasingly classified according to biomarkers that drive tumour growth and therapies developed to target them. In rare biomarker-defined cancers, randomised controlled trials to adequately assess targeted therapies may be infeasible. Extrapolating existing evidence of targeted therapy from common cancers to rare cancers sharing the same biomarker may reduce evidence requirements for regulatory approval in rare cancers. It is unclear whether guidelines exist for extrapolation. We sought to identify methodological guidance for extrapolating evidence from targeted therapies used for common cancers to rare biomarker-defined cancers. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Websites of health technology assessment agencies, regulatory bodies, research groups, scientific societies and industry. EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Register and Health Technology Assessment, Embase and MEDLINE databases (1946 to 11 May 2022). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Papers proposing a framework or recommendations for extrapolating evidence for rare cancers, small populations and biomarker-defined cancers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted framework details where available and guidance for components of extrapolation. We used these components to structure and summarise recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 23 papers. One paper provided an extrapolation framework but was not cancer specific. Extrapolation recommendations addressed six distinct components: strategies for grouping cancers as the same biomarker-defined disease; analytical validation requirements of a biomarker test to use across cancer types; strategies to generate control data when a randomised concurrent control arm is infeasible; sources to inform biomarker clinical utility assessment in the absence of prospective clinical evidence; requirements for surrogate endpoints chosen for the rare cancer; and assessing and augmenting safety data in the rare cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of an established framework, our recommendations for components of extrapolation can be used to guide discussions about interpreting evidence to support extrapolation. The review can inform the development of an extrapolation framework for biomarker-targeted therapies in rare cancers.