Meeting an un-MET need: Targeting MET in non-small cell lung cancer

The MET pathway can be activated by MET exon 14 skipping mutations, gene amplification, or overexpression. Mutations within this pathway carry a poor prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MET exon 14 skipping mutations occur in 3-4% of patients with NSCLC, while MET amplifications are found in 1-6% of patients. The most effective method for detection of MET amplification is fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and of MET exon 14 skipping mutations is RNA-based next generation sequencing (NGS). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is an alternative method of diagnosis but is not as reliable. Early studies of MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) demonstrated limited clinical benefit. However, newer selective MET TKIs, such as capmatinib and tepotinib, have improved efficacy. Both drugs have an acceptable safety profile with the most common treatment-related adverse event being peripheral edema. One of the most frequent resistance mechanisms to EGFR inhibition with osimertinib is MET amplification. There is interest in combining EGFR inhibition plus MET inhibition in an attempt to target this resistance mechanism. Additional ways of targeting MET alterations are currently under investigation, including the bi-specific antibody amivantamab. Additional research is needed to further understand resistance mechanisms to MET inhibition. There is limited research into the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition for MET-altered NSCLC, though some data suggests decreased efficacy compared with wild-type patients and increased toxicity associated with the combination of immunotherapy and MET TKIs. Future directions for research will include combination clinical trials and understanding rational combinations for MET alterations

Targeted Toxicities: Protocols for Monitoring the Adverse Events of Targeted Therapies Used in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment for many patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Multiple new oral targeted therapies have been approved in the last decade; however, their overall efficacy may be reduced by poor adherence, treatment interruptions, or dose reductions due to adverse events. Most institutions lack standard monitoring protocols for toxicities from these targeted agents. This review describes important adverse events observed in clinical trials and reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for both currently approved and upcoming promising therapies in the treatment of NSCLC. These agents cause a range of toxicities, including dermatologic, gastroenteric, pulmonary, and cardiac toxicities. This review proposes protocols for routine monitoring of these adverse events, both prior to initiation of therapy and while on treatment

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Peer reviewed: True Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC. </jats:p

What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?

Numerous clinical trials investigating neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been performed over the last 5 years. As the number of neoadjuvant trials increases, attention must be paid to identifying informative trial endpoints. Complete pathologic response has been shown to be an appropriate surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes, such as event-free survival or overall survival, in breast cancer and bladder cancer, but it is less established for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The simultaneous advances reported with adjuvant ICI make the optimal strategy for early-stage disease debatable. Considering the long time required to conduct trials, it is important to identify optimal endpoints and discover surrogate endpoints for survival that can help guide ongoing clinical research. Endpoints can be grouped into two categories: medical and surgical. Medical endpoints are measures of survival and drug activity; surgical endpoints describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant approaches at a surgical level as well as perioperative attrition and complications. There are also several exploratory endpoints, including circulating tumor DNA clearance and radiomics. In this review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of commonly reported endpoints for clinical trials of neoadjuvant regimens in NSCLC

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Is a Predictive Biomarker in Patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Treated with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Therapy

Background: First-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Despite higher response rates and prolonged progression free survival (PFS) compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy, a subset of these patients do not receive prolonged benefit from these agents. We investigate if the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and other markers of cachexia and chronic inflammation correlate with worse outcomes in these patients. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of 137 patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC treated with TKIs at Rush University Medical Center and University of Chicago Medicine from August 2011 to July 2019, with outcomes followed through July 2020. The predictive value of NLR and body mass index (BMI) was assessed at the start of therapy, and after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment by univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: On univariable analysis, NLR ≥ 5 or higher NLR on a continuous scale were both associated with significantly worse PFS and overall survival (OS) at treatment initiation, and after 6 or 12 weeks of treatment. On multivariable analysis, NLR ≥ 5 was associated with increased risk of death at 12 weeks of therapy (HR 3.002, 95% CI 1.282–7.029, p = 0.011), as was higher NLR on a continuous scale (HR 1.231, 95% CI 1.063–1.425, p = 0.0054). There was no difference in PFS and OS and amongst BMI categories though number of disease sites and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was associated with worse PFS and OS. Conclusions: Patients with NLR ≥ 5 have a worse median PFS and median OS than patients with NLR &lt; 5. NLR may have value as a predictive biomarker and may be useful for selecting patients for therapy intensification in the front-line setting either at diagnosis or after 12 weeks on therapy. NLR needs to be validated prospectively

Cost of genetic testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment associated with polymerase chain reaction versus next-generation sequencing biomarker testing for genomic alterations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

To assess US payers’ per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation. A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined. In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to$3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS: $2,298; PCR:$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks). Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion. NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.</p