Overall treatment strategy for patients with metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are standard of care in the first-line (1L) setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. EGFR activating mutations are a predictive factor for response to EGFR-TKIs. Meta-analyses have shown that patients with exon 21_L858R mutations exhibit reduced sensitivity to EGFR-TKIs, resulting in inferior patient outcomes compared to those with exon 19 deletion mutations, with worse overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response, and disease control rates. Clinical activity observed with 1L therapy with first-generation (1G), second-generation (2G), and third-generation (3G) EGFR-TKIs is not permanent, and resistance inevitably develops in all cases, supporting the importance of overall treatment planning. The introduction of the 3G EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, provides an opportunity to overcome T790M-mediated resistance to 1G, and 2G EGFR-TKIs. Additionally, with the use of osimertinib, fewer T790M mutations are being detected as T790M is not a reported resistance mechanism to 3G EGFR-TKIs. However, there are currently no approved targeted therapies after 3G EGFR-TKIs. In order to further improve patient outcomes, there is a need to explore additional options for the overall treatment strategy for patients, including 1L and beyond. Combination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs may be a potential therapeutic approach in the 1L setting. This review discusses current treatment options for mNSCLC with activating EGFR mutations based on tumor, patient, and treatment characteristics and how an overall treatment plan may be developed

Pemetrexed and Platinum Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC by Tumor Burden at Baseline: A Post Hoc Efficacy Analysis of KEYNOTE-189

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab by baseline tumor burden. METHODS: A total of 616 patients in the intention-to-treat population of the KEYNOTE-189 study were included in this analysis. Baseline tumor burden subgroups were identified on the basis of extent of distant metastasis (M1a versus M1b), median number (≤3 versus \u3e3) of organ systems with lesions, or symptom severity score of patient-reported lung cancer-associated symptoms (≤median versus \u3emedian). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and PFS-2 were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox methods. Objective response rate was analyzed using logistic regression models, and duration of response was analyzed descriptively. Efficacy outcomes were also analyzed according to the programmed death-ligand 1 expression levels. RESULTS: OS and PFS were significantly improved with pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab in all baseline tumor burden subgroups (M1a stage: OS hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.0037; PFS HR = 0.48, p = 0.0001; M1b stage: OS HR = 0.58, p ≤ 0.0001; PFS HR = 0.51, p ≤ 0.0001; number of organ systems with lesion ≤ 3: OS HR = 0.49, p ≤ 0.0001 PFS HR = 0.41, p ≤ 0.0001; \u3e3: OS HR = 0.67, p = 0.0068; PFS HR = 0.59, p = 0.0001; symptom severity score ≤ median: HR = 0.51, p ≤ 0.0001; PFS HR 0.49, p ≤ 0.0001; \u3e median: OS HR = 0.60, p = 0.0003; PFS HR = 0.48, p ≤ 0.0001). PFS2 and objective response rate were also improved with pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab in all baseline tumor burden subgroups. Efficacy outcomes were generally consistent regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 expression levels. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab were found to have relevant efficacy regardless of the extent of baseline tumor burden and the variables used to define it. These results further support pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab as the standard of care in the first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC

Utilization of Target Lesion Heterogeneity For Treatment Efficacy assessment in Late Stage Lung Cancer

RATIONALE: Recent studies have discovered several unique tumor response subgroups outside of response classification by Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST), such as mixed response and oligometastasis. These subtypes have a distinctive property, lesion heterogeneity defined as diversity of tumor growth profiles in RECIST target lesions. Furthermore, many cancer clinical trials have been activated to evaluate various treatment options for heterogeneity-related subgroups (e.g., 29 trials so far listed in clinicaltrials.gov for cancer patients with oligometastasis). Some of the trials have shown survival benefit by tailored treatment strategies. This evidence presents the unmet need to incorporate lesion heterogeneity to improve RECIST response classification. METHOD: An approach for Lesion Heterogeneity Classification (LeHeC) was developed using a contemporary statistical approach to assess target lesion variation, characterize patient treatment response, and translate informative evidence to improving treatment strategy. A mixed effect linear model was used to determine lesion heterogeneity. Further analysis was conducted to classify various types of lesion variation and incorporate with RECIST to enhance response classification. A study cohort of 110 target lesions from 36 lung cancer patients was used for evaluation. RESULTS: Due to small sample size issue, the result was exploratory in nature. By analyzing RECIST target lesion data, the LeHeC approach detected a high prevalence (n = 21; 58%) of lesion heterogeneity. Subgroup classification revealed several informative distinct subsets in a descending order of lesion heterogeneity: mix of progression and regression (n = 7), mix of progression and stability (n = 9), mix of regression and stability (n = 5), and non-heterogeneity (n = 15). Evaluation for association of lesion heterogeneity and RECIST best response classification showed lesion heterogeneity commonly occurred in each response group (stable disease: 16/27; 59%; partial response: 3/5; 60%; progression disease: 2/4; 50%). Survival analysis showed a differential trend of overall survival between heterogeneity and non-heterogeneity in RECIST response groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate lesion heterogeneity, an underappreciated metric, for RECIST application in oncology clinical trials. Results indicated lesion heterogeneity is not an uncommon event. The LeHeC approach could enhance RECIST response classification by utilizing granular lesion level discovery of heterogeneity

Postprogression Outcomes for Osimertinib versus Standard-of-Care EGFR-TKI in Patients with Previously Untreated EGFR-mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract Purpose: In the phase III FLAURA study, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) in patients with previously untreated EGFR (exon 19 deletion or L858R) mutation-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Interim overall survival (OS) data were encouraging, but not formally statistically significant at current maturity (25%). Here we report exploratory postprogression outcomes. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or SoC EGFR-TKI (gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg, orally, once daily). Treatment beyond disease progression was allowed if the investigator judged ongoing clinical benefit. Patients receiving SoC EGFR-TKI could cross over to receive osimertinib after independently confirmed objective disease progression with documented postprogression T790M-positive mutation status. Results: At data cutoff (June 12, 2017), 138 of 279 (49%) and 213 of 277 (77%) patients discontinued osimertinib and SoC EGFR-TKI, respectively, of whom 82 (59%) and 129 (61%), respectively, started a subsequent treatment. Median time to discontinuation of any EGFR-TKI or death was 23.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.5–not calculable (NC)] in the osimertinib arm and 16.0 months (95% CI, 14.8–18.6) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm. Median second PFS was not reached (95% CI, 23.7–NC) in the osimertinib arm and 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2–NC) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44–0.78; P = 0.0004]. Conclusions: All postprogression endpoints showed consistent improvement with osimertinib versus SoC EGFR-TKI, providing further confidence in the interim OS data

A Randomized Ph2 Study of MEDI0680 in Combination With Durvalumab vs. Nivolumab Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND: MEDI0680 is a humanized anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody and durvalumab is an anti-PD-L1 antibody. Combining treatment using these antibodies may improve efficacy versus blockade of PD-1 alone. This phase 2 study evaluated antitumor activity and safety of MEDI0680 plus durvalumab versus nivolumab monotherapy in immunotherapy naïve patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma who received at least one prior line of anti-angiogenic therapy. METHODS: Patients received either MEDI0680 (20 mg/kg) with durvalumab (750 mg) or nivolumab (240 mg), all IV Q2W. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), safety, overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Exploratory endpoints included changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline tumor mutational burden (TMB), and tumor-infiltrated immune cell profiles. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized (combination, n = 42; nivolumab, n = 21). ORR was 16.7% (7/42; 95% CI, 7.0-31.4) with combination treatment and 23.8% (5/21; 95% CI, 8.2- 47.2) with nivolumab. Median PFS was 3.6 months in both arms; median OS was not reached in either arm. Due to AEs, 23.8% of patients discontinued MEDI0680 and durvalumab and 14.3% of patients discontinued nivolumab. In the combination arm, reduction in ctDNA fraction was associated with longer PFS. ctDNA mutational analysis did not demonstrate an association with response in either arm. Tumor-infiltrated immune profiles showed an association between immune cell activation and response in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: MEDI0680 combined with durvalumab was safe and tolerable; however, it did not improve efficacy versus nivolumab monotherapy

Gene Therapy: Charting a Future Course—Summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop, April 12, 2013

Recently, the gene therapy field has begun to experience clinical successes in a number of different diseases using various approaches and vectors. The workshop Gene Therapy: Charting a Future Course, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Biotechnology Activities, brought together early and mid-career researchers to discuss the key scientific challenges and opportunities, ethical and communication issues, and NIH and foundation resources available to facilitate further clinical advances

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Frontline Pembrolizumab-Based Treatment for Advanced Lung Cancer

Background: Pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy has become an important frontline treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, it remains unclear how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the treatment outcome. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted based on a real-world database, comparing pandemic with pre-pandemic patient cohorts. The pandemic cohort consisted of patients who initiated treatment from March to July 2020, with follow-up through March 2021. The pre-pandemic cohort consisted of those initiating treatment between March and July 2019.The outcome was overall real-world survival. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models were constructed. Results: Analyses included data from 2090 patients: 998 in the pandemic cohort and 1092 in the pre-pandemic cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable, with 33% of patients having PD-L1 expression level ≥50% and 29% of patients receiving pembrolizumab monotherapy. Among those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy (N = 613), there was a differential impact of the pandemic on survival by PD-L1 expression levels (p-interaction = 0.02). For those with PD-L1 level p = 0.03). However, for those with PD-L1 level ≥ 50%, survival was not better in the pandemic cohort: HR 1.17 (95% CI: 0.85–1.61, p = 0.34). We found no statistically significant impact of the pandemic on survival among patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in survival among patients with lower PD-L1 expression who were treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. This finding suggests an increased efficacy of immunotherapy due to viral exposure in this population

Tobacco-Related Health Disparities across the Cancer Care Continuum

Background Use of tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status disproportionately experience tobacco-related disease and illness. Unique challenges and circumstances exist at each point in the cancer care continuum that may contribute to the greater cancer burden experienced by these groups. Methods We reviewed tobacco-related disparities from cancer prevention to cancer survivorship. We also describe research that seeks to reduce tobacco-related disparities. Results Racial/ethnic minorities and low-income individuals experience unique social and environmental contextual challenges such as greater environmental cues to smoke and greater levels of perceived stress and social discrimination. Clinical practice guidelines support the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling for racial and ethnic minorities, yet smoking cessation rates are lower in this group when compared with non-Hispanic whites. Superior efficacy for culturally adapted interventions has not yet been established. Conclusions To reduce health disparities in this population, a comprehensive strategy is needed with efforts directed at each point along the cancer care continuum. Strategies are needed to reduce the impact of contextual factors such as targeted tobacco marketing and social discrimination on smoking initiation and maintenance. Future efforts should focus on increasing the use of evidence-based cessation treatment methods and studying its effectiveness in these populations. Attention must also be focused on improving treatment outcomes by reducing smoking in diverse racial and ethnic patient populations. </jats:sec