METHODS: Eligible Asian patients (enrolled at Asian sites) who were at least 18 years of age (≥20 years in Japan) and had untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg, orally once daily) or an SoC EGFR TKI (gefitinib, 250 mg, or erlotinib, 150 mg, orally once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). The key secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, central nervous system efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS: The median PFS was 16.5 versus 11.0 months for the osimertinib and SoC EGFR TKI groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.72, p < 0.0001). The overall survival data were immature (24% maturity). The objective response rates were 80% for osimertinib and 75% for an SoC EGFR TKI. The median central nervous system PFS was not calculable for the osimertinib group and was 13.8 months for the SoC EGFR TKI group (hazard ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.17, p = 0.118). Fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher (40% versus 48%) and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (15% versus 21%) were reported with osimertinib versus with an SoC EGFR TKI, respectively.

METHODS: This study included 344 patients from the Korean Obstructive Lung Disease (KOLD) cohort. External validation was performed on a cohort of 112 patients. In total, 525 chest CT-based radiomics features were semi-automatically extracted. The five most useful features for survival prediction were selected by least absolute shrinkage and selection operation (LASSO) Cox regression analysis and used to generate a RS. The ability of the RS for classifying COPD patients into high or low mortality risk groups was evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS: The five features remaining after the LASSO analysis were %LAA-950, AWT_Pi10_6th, AWT_Pi10_heterogeneity, %WA_heterogeneity, and VA18mm. The RS demonstrated a C-index of 0.774 in the discovery group and 0.805 in the validation group. Patients with a RS greater than 1.053 were classified into the high-risk group and demonstrated worse overall survival than those in the low-risk group in both the discovery (log-rank test, < 0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 5.265) and validation groups (log-rank test, < 0.001; HR, 5.223). For both groups, RS was significantly associated with overall survival after adjustments for patient age and body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS: A radiomics approach for survival prediction and risk stratification in COPD patients is feasible, and the constructed radiomics model demonstrated acceptable performance. The RS derived from chest CT data of COPD patients was able to effectively identify those at increased risk of mortality.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.

RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).

METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 or 80 mg/d of lurasidone or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 6 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population.

RESULTS: On the basis of the analysis for the mITT population, the estimated difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -4.8 (P = 0.050) and -4.2 (P = 0.080). For the full intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -5.8 (P = 0.017) and -4.2 (P = 0.043). The most frequent adverse events in the lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d and placebo groups, respectively, were akathisia (7.3%, 10.4%, 3.3%), somnolence (6.0%, 2.6%, 0.7%), and vomiting (6.0%, 5.8%, 2.0%). The proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant weight gain (≥7%) was 5.3% for lurasidone 40 mg/d, 1.3% for 80 mg/d, and 1.4% for placebo. End point changes in metabolic parameters and prolactin were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo.