Biomarker-Directed Targeted Therapy Plus Durvalumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Umbrella Trial

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance—which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment—and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)–ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab–olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab–danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab–oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab–ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6–7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8–2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1–20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5–10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab–ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab–ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab–ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC

Present and Emerging Biomarkers in Immunotherapy for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Review

Targeting the immune system, especially the PDL-1/PD-1 axis, has significantly improved the outcomes of metastatic lung cancer patients. However, only a portion of patients will benefit significantly from PD(L)1 therapeutics alone or in combination with either chemotherapy or anti-CTLA4 antibody. It is therefore important to study predictive biomarkers to help select the patients who will experience the most benefit from immunotherapy. In this paper, the current status of PDL-1 expression on tumour cells, the smoking status of patients, tumour mutational burden, gut microbiome and STK11 and KEAP1 mutations in the tumour as predictive biomarkers for PD(L)-1-based immunotherapy are summarized

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of MET-Altered NSCLC

In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET-altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET-targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET-altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations

Consensus Recommendations to Optimize Testing for New Targetable Alterations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and low 5-year survival, but the use of targeted therapies in NSCLC has improved patient outcomes over the past 10 years. The pace of development of new targeted therapies is accelerating, with the associated need for molecular testing of new targetable alterations. As the complexity of biomarker testing in NSCLC increases, there is a need for guidance on how to manage the fluid standard-of-care in NSCLC, identify pragmatic molecular testing requirements, and optimize result reporting. An expert multidisciplinary working group with representation from medical oncology, pathology, and clinical genetics convened via virtual meetings to create consensus recommendations for testing of new targetable alterations in NSCLC. The importance of accurate and timely testing of all targetable alterations to optimize disease management using targeted therapies was emphasized by the working group. Therefore, the panel of experts recommends that all targetable alterations be tested reflexively at NSCLC diagnosis as part of a comprehensive panel, using methods that can detect all relevant targetable alterations. In addition, comprehensive biomarker testing should be performed at the request of the treating clinician upon development of resistance to targeted therapy. The expert multidisciplinary working group also made recommendations for reporting to improve clarity and ease of interpretation of results by treating clinicians and to accommodate the rapid evolution in clinical actionability of these alterations. Molecular testing of all targetable alterations in NSCLC is the key for treatment decision-making and access to new therapies. These consensus recommendations are intended as a guide to further optimize molecular testing of new targetable alterations

Effects of low-fat and high-fat meals on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lapatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours

AIM: To quantify the effect of food on the systemic exposure of lapatinib at steady state when administered 1 h before and after meals, and to observe the safety and tolerability of lapatinib under these conditions in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: This was a three-treatment, randomised, three-sequence cross-over study. Lapatinib was administered 1 h after a low- [B] or a high-fat [C] meal and systemic exposure was compared with that obtained following administration 1 h before a low-fat meal [A]. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were included, of whom 12 were evaluable for the pharmacokinetic analysis. Both low-fat and high-fat meals affected lapatinib exposure. Lapatinib AUC0-24 increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.80-fold (90 % CI: 1.37-2.37) and after a high-fat meal by 2.61-fold (90 % CI: 1.98-3.43). Lapatinib Cmax increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.90-fold (90 % CI: 1.49-2.43) and after a high-fat meal by 2.66-fold (90 % CI: 2.08-3.41). The most commonly occurring treatment-related toxicity was diarrhoea (8/25, 32 % CTCAE grade 1 and 2/25, 8 % grade 2) and one treatment-related grade ≥ 3 event occurred (fatigue grade 3, 4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Both low-fat and high-fat food consumed 1 h before lapatinib administration increased lapatinib systemic exposure compared with lapatinib administration 1 h before a low-fat meal. In order to administer lapatinib in a fasted state, it is advised to administer the drug 1 h before a meal

Effects of low-fat and high-fat meals on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lapatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours

AIM: To quantify the effect of food on the systemic exposure of lapatinib at steady state when administered 1 h before and after meals, and to observe the safety and tolerability of lapatinib under these conditions in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: This was a three-treatment, randomised, three-sequence cross-over study. Lapatinib was administered 1 h after a low- [B] or a high-fat [C] meal and systemic exposure was compared with that obtained following administration 1 h before a low-fat meal [A]. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were included, of whom 12 were evaluable for the pharmacokinetic analysis. Both low-fat and high-fat meals affected lapatinib exposure. Lapatinib AUC0-24 increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.80-fold (90 % CI: 1.37-2.37) and after a high-fat meal by 2.61-fold (90 % CI: 1.98-3.43). Lapatinib Cmax increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.90-fold (90 % CI: 1.49-2.43) and after a high-fat meal by 2.66-fold (90 % CI: 2.08-3.41). The most commonly occurring treatment-related toxicity was diarrhoea (8/25, 32 % CTCAE grade 1 and 2/25, 8 % grade 2) and one treatment-related grade ≥ 3 event occurred (fatigue grade 3, 4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Both low-fat and high-fat food consumed 1 h before lapatinib administration increased lapatinib systemic exposure compared with lapatinib administration 1 h before a low-fat meal. In order to administer lapatinib in a fasted state, it is advised to administer the drug 1 h before a meal