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).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) images of 194 multi-racial NSCLC patients (79 EGFR mutants and 115 wildtypes) were collected from three different countries using 5 manufacturers' scanners with a variety of scanning parameters. Ninety-nine cases obtained from the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) in Malaysia were used for training and validation procedures. Forty-one cases collected from the Kyushu University Hospital (KUH) in Japan and fifty-four cases obtained from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) in America were used for a test procedure. Radiomic features were obtained from BN maps, which represent topologically invariant heterogeneous characteristics of lung cancer on CT images, by applying histogram- and texture-based feature computations. A BN-based signature was determined using support vector machine (SVM) models with the best combination of features that maximized a robustness index (RI) which defined a higher total area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs) and lower difference of AUCs between the training and the validation. The SVM model was built using the signature and optimized in a five-fold cross validation. The BN-based model was compared to conventional original image (OI)- and wavelet-decomposition (WD)-based models with respect to the RI between the validation and the test.
RESULTS: The BN-based model showed a higher RI of 1.51 compared with the models based on the OI (RI: 1.33) and the WD (RI: 1.29).
CONCLUSION: The proposed model showed higher robustness than the conventional models in the identification of EGFR mutations among NSCLC patients. The results suggested the robustness of the BN-based approach against variations in image scanner/scanning parameters.
METHODS: This is a multicenter observational study of first-line afatinib in Malaysian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients' demographic, clinical and treatment data, as well as resistance mechanisms to afatinib were retrospectively captured. The statistical methods included Chi-squared test and independent t-test for variables, Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test for survival, and Cox regression model for multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Eighty-five patients on first-line afatinib from 1st October 2014 to 30th April 2018 were eligible for the study. EGFR mutations detected in tumors included exon 19 deletion in 80.0%, exon 21 L858R point mutation in 12.9%, and rare or complex EGFR mutations in 7.1% of patients. Among these patients, 18.8% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4, 29.4% had symptomatic brain metastases and 17.6% had abnormal organ function. Afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily were the most common starting and maintenance doses. Only one-tenth of patients experienced severe side-effects with none having grade 4 toxicities. The objective response rate was 76.5% while the disease control rate was 95.3%. At the time of analysis, 56 (65.9%) patients had progression of disease (PD) with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.85-16.55 months). Only 12.5% of the progressed patients developed new symptomatic brain metastases. The overall survival (OS) data was not mature. Thirty-three (38.8%) patients had died with a median OS of 28.9 months (95% CI, 19.82-37.99 months). The median follow-up period for the survivors was 20.0 months (95% CI, 17.49-22.51 months). Of patients with PD while on afatinib, 55.3% were investigated for resistance mechanisms with exon 20 T790 M mutation detected in 42.0% of them.
CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib is an effective first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC with a good response rate and long survival, even in patients with unfavorable clinical characteristics. The side-effects of afatinib were manageable and T790 M mutation was the most common resistance mechanism causing treatment failure.
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 .).
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: In this prospective study, EGFR mutations in exons 18, 19, 20 and 21 in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy specimens of consecutive NSCLC patients were asessed by real-time polymerase chain reaction.
RESULTS: EGFR mutations were detected in NSCLCs from 55 (36.4%) of a total of 151 patients, being significantly more common in females (62.5%) than in males (17.2%) [odds ratio (OR), 8.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.77-16.98; p<0.001] and in never smokers (62.5%) than in ever smokers (12.7%) (OR, 11.50; 95%CI, 5.08-26.03; p<0.001). Mutations were more common in adenocarcinoma (39.4%) compared to non-adenocarcinoma NSCLCs (15.8%) (p=0.072). The mutation rates in patients of different ethnicities were not significantly different (p=0.08). Never smoking status was the only clinical feature that independently predicted the presence of EGFR mutations (adjusted OR, 5.94; 95%CI, 1.94- 18.17; p=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: In Malaysian patients with NSCLC, the EGFR mutation rate was similar to that in other Asian populations. EGFR mutations were significantly more common in female patients and in never smokers. Never smoking status was the only independent predictor for the presence of EGFR mutations.
RESULTS: All of the mutations were found in adenocarcinoma, except one that was in squamous cell carcinoma. The mutation rate was 45.7% (221/484). Complex mutations were also observed, wherein 8 tumours carried 2 mutations and 1 tumour carried 3 mutations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both methods detected EGFR mutations in FFPE samples. HRM assays gave more EGFR positive results compared to Scorpion ARMS.