EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA Is a Unique Exon 20 Insertion Mutation That Displays Sensitivity to Approved and In-Development Lung Cancer EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA is a unique exon 20 insertion mutation (~5% to 6% of exon 20 insertions), which, at the structural and enzyme kinetic level, more closely resembles EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)- sensitizing mutants, such as EGFR exon 19 indels and L858R. A limited number of preclinical models and clinical reports have studied the response of this mutant to EGFR TKIs. METHODS: We used models of EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA and more typical EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations to probe representative first- (gefitinib, erlotinib), second- (afatinib), third-generation (osimertinib), and in-development EGFR exon 20-specific (poziotinib, mobocertinib [TAK-788]) TKIs. We also compiled outcomes of EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA-mutated lung cancers treated with EGFR TKIs. RESULTS: Cells driven by EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA were consistently sensitive to EGFR TKIs (as opposed to those driven by typical EGFR exon 20 insertions [A767_V769dupASV, D770_N771insSVD and H773_V774insH]), which were only inhibited by in-development EGFR TKIs at doses below those affecting wild-type EGFR. Most case instances (62.5% [95% confidence interval: 39%-86%], n = 16) with lung cancers harboring EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA responded to clinically available EGFR TKIs (including osimertinib) and to in-development EGFR exon 20-specific TKIs (including mobocertinib) with prolonged periods of progression-free survival in some cases. Median overall survival for EGFR TKI-treated cases was 22 months (95% confidence interval: 16-25). Mechanisms of acquired TKI resistance of this mutant remain underreported, but do seem to align with those of common mutations. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest report to confirm that the EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA mutation is sensitive to clinically available first-, second-, third-generation, and in-development EGFR TKIs.

Reductions in prostatic doses are associated with less acute morbidity in patients undergoing Pd-103 brachytherapy: Substantiation of the rationale for focal therapy.

PURPOSE: Interest in prostate dose reduction or focal treatment exists due to expected reductions in treatment morbidity. Prior analyses have not generally corroborated relationships between prostate or urethral dose and urinary toxicity after brachytherapy, but such analyses have been performed on cohorts all receiving the same prescribed dose. We analyzed patients treated to differing prescription doses to assess acute urinary morbidity with dose reduction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with Pd-103 to either 125 Gy or 90-100 Gy were compared using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 1-month postimplant. Patients in the 90-100 Gy cohort began external beam radiation therapy after their 1-month assessment; thus, toxicities were measured before contribution from external beam radiation therapy. Patient/treatment characteristics were compared to verify subgroup homogeneity. Dose and change in IPSS 1 month after treatment were assessed using a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one and 41 patients were treated with 125 Gy versus 90-100 Gy, respectively. Preimplant and postimplant prostate volumes and initial IPSS were similar between groups. Higher prescription dose and increased pretreatment IPSS were independent predictors of increased 1-month IPSS. In addition, every 10 percentage point additional prostate volume receiving a given dose was associated with increase in IPSS after treatment for the same level of pretreatment IPSS. CONCLUSION: Lower prescription dose and decreased volume of high-dose regions to the prostate correlated with reduced acute urinary morbidity after brachytherapy. Our findings suggest that focal treatment approaches with modest dose reductions to subregions of the prostate may reduce acute morbidity and potentially expand the number of patients eligible for brachytherapy.

Effects of perineural invasion on biochemical recurrence and prostate cancer-specific survival in patients treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Perineural invasion (PNI) has not yet gained universal acceptance as an independent predictor of adverse outcomes for prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). We analyzed the prognostic influence of PNI for a large institutional cohort of prostate cancer patients who underwent EBRT with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We, retrospectively, reviewed prostate cancer patients treated with EBRT from 1993 to 2007 at our institution. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), with secondary endpoints of metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for all survival endpoints. Hazard ratios for PNI were analyzed for the entire cohort and for subsets defined by NCCN risk level. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for all survival endpoints after stratification by PNI status, with significant differences computed using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 888 men included for analysis, PNI was present on biopsy specimens in 187 (21.1%). PNI was associated with clinical stage, pretreatment PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, and use of ADT (all P<0.01). Men with PNI experienced significantly inferior 10-year BFFS (40.0% vs. 57.8%, P = 0.002), 10-year MFS (79.7% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.001), and 10-year PCSS (90.9% vs. 95.9%, P = 0.009), but not 10-year OS (67.5% vs. 77.5%, P = 0.07). On multivariate analysis, PNI was independently associated with inferior BFFS (P<0.001), but not MFS, PCSS, or OS. In subset analysis, PNI was associated with inferior BFFS (P = 0.04) for high-risk patients and with both inferior BFFS (P = 0.01) and PCSS (P = 0.05) for low-risk patients. Biochemical failure occurred in 33% of low-risk men with PNI who did not receive ADT compared to 8% for low-risk men with PNI treated with ADT (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: PNI was an independently significant predictor of adverse survival outcomes in this large institutional cohort, particularly for patients with NCCN low-risk disease. PNI should be carefully considered along with other standard prognostic factors when treating these patients with EBRT. Supplementing EBRT with ADT may be beneficial for select low-risk patients with PNI though independent validation with prospective studies is recommended.

Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Outcomes Following Definitive Radiation.

PURPOSE: Existing definitions of high-risk prostate cancer consist of men who experience significant heterogeneity in outcomes. As such, criteria that identify a subpopulation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer patients who are at very high risk (VHR) for poor survival outcomes following prostatectomy were recently developed at our institution and include the presence of any of the following disease characteristics: multiple NCCN high-risk factors, primary Gleason pattern 5 disease and/or ≥5 biopsy cores with Gleason sums of 8 to 10. Whether these criteria also apply to men undergoing definitive radiation is unclear, as is the optimal treatment regimen in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All men consecutively treated with definitive radiation by a single provider from 1993 to 2006 and who fulfilled criteria for NCCN high-risk disease were identified (n=288), including 99 patients (34%) with VHR disease. Multivariate-adjusted competing risk regression models were constructed to assess associations between the VHR definition and biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis assessed the association of the VHR definition with overall mortality (OM). Cumulative incidences of failure endpoints were compared between VHR men and other NCCN high-risk men. RESULTS: Men with VHR disease compared to other NCCN high-risk men experienced a higher 10-year incidence of BF (54.0% vs 35.4%, respectively, P<.001), DM (34.9% vs 13.4%, respectively, P<.001), PCSM (18.5% vs 5.9%, respectively, P<.001), and OM (36.4% vs 27.0%, respectively, P=.04). VHR men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at the end of radiation (EOR) remained at high risk of 10-year PCSM compared to VHR men with an undetectable EOR PSA (31.0% vs 13.7%, respectively, P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients who meet VHR criteria experience distinctly worse outcomes following definitive radiation and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, particularly if an EOR PSA is detectable. Optimal use of local therapies for VHR patients should be explored further, as should novel agents.