Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Advanced KRAS^G12C-Mutated NSCLC Treated With Sotorasib

Introduction: For patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC who are treated with sotorasib, there is a lack of biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. We therefore investigated the clinical utility of pretreatment and on-treatment circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and treatment-emergent alterations on disease progression. Methods: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected before sotorasib treatment, at first-response evaluation and at disease progression. The TruSight Oncology 500 panel was used for ctDNA and variant allele frequency analysis. Tumor response and progression-free survival were assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results: Pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA was detected in 50 of 66 patients (76%). Patients with detectable KRASG12C had inferior progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06–4.30], p = 0.031) and overall survival (HR 2.61 [95% CI: 1.16–5.91], p = 0.017). At first-response evaluation (n = 40), 29 patients (73%) had a molecular response. Molecular nonresponders had inferior overall survival (HR 3.58 [95% CI: 1.65–7.74], p = 0.00059). The disease control rate was significantly higher in those with a molecular response (97% versus 64%, p = 0.015). KRAS amplifications were identified as recurrent treatment-emergent alterations. Conclusions: Our data suggest detectable pretreatment KRASG12C ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis and on-treatment ctDNA clearance as a marker for treatment response. We identified KRAS amplifications as a potential recurring resistance mechanism to sotorasib. Identifying patients with superior prognosis could aid in optimizing time of treatment initiation, and identifying patients at risk of early progression could allow for earlier treatment decisions.</p

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (&lt;20.0 kg/m2) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS; &gt;271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (&lt;163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.</p

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands:Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

Background Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib

Defining oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Concept versus biology, a literature review

Objective: In this review, the concept of (synchronous) oligometastatic disease in patients with non-oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will be placed in the context of tumor biology and metastatic growth patterns. We will also provide considerations for clinical practice and future perspectives, which will ultimately lead to better patient selection and oligometastatic disease outcome. Background: The treatment landscape of metastasized NSCLC has moved from “one-size fits all” to a personalized approach. Prognosis has traditionally been poor but new treatment options, such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, brighten future perspectives. Another emerging development is the recognition of patients with so-called “oligometastatic” state of disease. Oligometastatic disease has been recognized as a distinct clinical presentation in which the tumor is stated to be early in its evolution of metastatic potential. It is suggested that this stage of disease has an indolent course, comes with a better prognosis and therefore could be considered for radical multimodality treatment. Methods: Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts. Conclusions: Oligometastatic NSCLC is a broad spectrum disease, with a variable prognosis. Although the biology and behavior of “intermediate state” of metastatic disease are not fully understood, there is evidence that a subgroup of patients can benefit from local radical treatment when integrated into a multimodality regime. The consensus definition of oligometastatic NSCLC, including accurate staging, may help to uniform future trials. The preferable treatment strategy seems to sequential systemic treatment with subsequent local radical treatment in patients with a partial response or stable disease. Prognostic factors such as N-stage, number and site of distant metastases, tumor volume, performance status, age, and tumor type should be considered. The local radical treatment strategy has to be discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting, taking into account patient characteristics and invasiveness of the procedure. However, many aspects remain to be explored and learned about the cancer biology and characteristics of intermediate state tumors

Cardiac Toxicity of Alectinib in Patients With ALK+ Lung Cancer: Outcomes of Cardio-Oncology Follow-Up

Background: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (3% to 7%) predict for response to ALK-inhibitors (eg, alectinib, first line), resulting in a 5-year survival rate of ∼60% and median progression-free survival of 34.8 months. Although the overall toxicity rate of alectinib is acceptable, unexplained adverse events, including edema and bradycardia, may indicate potential cardiac toxicity. Objectives: This study's aim was to investigate the cardiotoxicity profile and exposure–toxicity relationship of alectinib. Methods: Between April 2020 and September 2021, 53 patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer treated with alectinib were included. Patients starting with alectinib after April 2020 underwent a cardiac work-up at start, at 6 months and at 1 year at the cardio-oncology outpatients' clinic. Patients already receiving alectinib >6 months underwent 1 cardiac evaluation. Bradycardia, edema, and severe alectinib toxicity (grade ≥3 and grade ≥2 adverse events leading to dose modifications) data were collected. Alectinib steady-state trough concentrations were used for exposure–toxicity analyses. Results: Left ventricular ejection fraction remained stable in all patients who underwent an on-treatment cardiac evaluation (n = 34; median 62%; IQR: 58%-64%). Twenty-two patients (42%) developed alectinib-related bradycardia (6 symptomatic bradycardia). One patient underwent a pacemaker implantation for severe symptomatic bradycardia. Severe toxicity was significantly associated with a 35% higher alectinib mean Ctrough (728 vs 539 ng/mL, SD = 83 ng/mL; 1-sided P = 0.015). Conclusions: No patients showed signs of a diminished left ventricular ejection fraction. Alectinib caused more bradycardia than previously reported (42%) with some instances of severe symptomatic bradycardia. Patients with severe toxicity generally had an elevated exposure above the therapeutic threshold

Hepatotoxicity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with sotorasib after prior immunotherapy:a comprehensive clinical and pharmacokinetic analysis

Background: Sotorasib given after immunotherapy could put patients at increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Therefore, there is a need to gain insight into the potential correlation between anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, anti-PD-(L)1 concentrations, sotorasib concentrations, and the incidence of hepatotoxicity during sotorasib. Methods: Patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC treated with sotorasib were prospectively enrolled in our biomarker cohort study (NCT05221372). Plasma samples were collected prior and during sotorasib treatment for anti-PD-1 and sotorasib concentrations. ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increases were collected prospectively and graded according to CTCAEv5.0. Severe hepatotoxicity was defined as grade ≥3 ALT/AST/ALP/GGT increase. Findings: Of the 91 included patients, 80 (88%) received prior anti-PD-(L)1. Prior anti-PD-(L)1 and prior immune-related hepatotoxicity were associated with a higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity (35% versus 0%, p = 0.016 and 75% versus 31%, p = 0.019, respectively). Patients with an interval of ≤6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib (n = 18) had a significantly higher incidence of severe hepatotoxicity than those with a 6–12 week (n = 24) and ≥12 week (n = 38) interval (83% versus 33% versus 13%, respectively, p &lt; 0.0001). Sotorasib trough concentrations did not differ significantly between those with or without severe hepatotoxicity (106 versus 126 ng/mL, p = 0.16). Pembrolizumab concentrations were higher in those with severe hepatotoxicity versus those without (25.6 versus 6.1 μg/mL, p &lt; 0.0001).Interpretation: In this preliminary prospective study, sotorasib after PD-(L)1 blockade was associated with severe hepatotoxicity, especially in patients with a short interval between treatments, prior immune-related hepatitis and higher anti-PD-1 plasma concentrations. Our results suggest a minimum interval of 6 weeks between anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib to minimize the risk of hepatotoxicity. Funding: None.</p