RESULTS: The fact that GMP attached covalently with the phosphate group of sodium tripolyphosphate (GMP-STP) was disclosed directly by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Furthermore, ultrasound significantly improved the hydrophobicity and solubility of GMP-STP, which could be attributed to the conversion of α-helix to β-sheet, β-turns, and random coils by sonication. The spatial stabilization of the protein phosphorylation process was boosted by ultrasound, making the droplets more dispersed, and thus an improvement in the functional properties of GMP-STP was observed. Water-holding capacity, oil-binding capacity, and emulsifying and foaming properties were best at an ultrasound power of 400 W.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-assisted phosphorylation has great potential to modulate the structure-function relationship of proteins. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry.
METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).
METHODS: The ATGL-predicted protein structure, verified by PROCHECK, was determined using AlphaFold. Molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, and prime molecular mechanic-generalized born surface area were performed using LigPrep, Desmond, and prime MM-GBSA modules of Schrödinger software release 2021-2, respectively. For pharmacological validation, immunoblotting was performed to assess ATGL protein expression. The fluorescence intensity and glycerol concentration were quantified to evaluate the efficiency of phillyrin in inhibiting ATGL.
METHODS: RAINBOW-Asia was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 32 centres in China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Adult patients (≥18 years) with metastatic or locally advanced, unresectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who previously received fluoropyrimidine-platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned with a centralised interactive web response system in a 2:1 ratio to receive ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle. Randomisation was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and presence of peritoneal metastases. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02898077, and has been completed.
FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 440 patients were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus paclitaxel (n=294) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n=146). Median progression-free survival was 4·14 months (95% CI 3·71-4·30) in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group compared with 3·15 months (2·83-4·14) in the placebo plus paclitaxel group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·765, 95% CI 0·613-0·955, p=0·0184). Median overall survival was 8·71 months (95% CI 7·98-9·49) in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group and 7·92 months (6·31-9·10) in the placebo plus paclitaxel group (HR 0·963, 95% CI 0·771-1·203, p=0·7426). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (159 [54%] of 293 patients in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group vs 56 [39%] of 145 in the placebo plus paclitaxel group), decreased white blood cell count (127 [43%] vs 42 [29%]), anaemia (46 [16%] vs 24 [17%]), hypertension (21 [7%] vs nine [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (18 [6%] vs one [<1%]).
INTERPRETATION: These findings, along with the results from RAINBOW, support the use of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as second-line therapy in a predominantly Chinese population with advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.
FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company, USA.
TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.
RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).
CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).