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).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.
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.
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 single-center retrospective study, the relationship between common driver mutations (EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement) and PD-L1 expression in advanced NSCLC according to the patients' smoking history was examined. Light, moderate and heavy smokers had smoked
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EGFR intron 1 polymorphism was analysed in three distinct healthy Asian subjects, namely, Chinese (N = 96), Malays (N = 98) and Indians (N = 100). Comparative genomic hybridisation was performed to investigate for changes in DNA copy number in relation to the polymorphic CA dinucleotide repeats in breast tumor tissues (N = 22).
RESULTS: The frequency of short alleles with 14 and 15 CA repeats were most common in the Asian populations and significantly higher than those reported for Caucasians. The frequency of 20 CA repeats was 5%, almost 13-fold lower than previous reports. EGFR amplifications were detected in 23% and 11% of breast tumor tissues harboring short and long CA repeats, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that the frequency of alleles encoding for short CA dinucleotide repeats is common in Asian populations. EGFR expression and amplification levels were also higher in Asian breast tumor tissues with short CA dinucleotide repeats. These findings suggest that the EGFR intron 1 polymorphism may influence response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in breast cancer patients and further studies are warranted.
METHODS: EGFR GCN was examined by in situ hybridization (ISH) in biopsies from 78 patients with OPMD and 92 patients with early-stage (stages I and II) OSCC. EGFR ISH signals were scored by two pathologists and a category assigned by consensus. The data were correlated with patient demographics and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: OPMD with abnormal EGFR GCN were more likely to undergo malignant transformation than diploid cases. EGFR genomic gain was detected in a quarter of early-stage OSCC, but did not correlate with clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that abnormal EGFR GCN has clinical utility as a biomarker for the detection of OPMD destined to undergo malignant transformation. Prospective studies are required to verify this finding. It remains to be determined if EGFR GCN could be used to select patients for EGFR-targeted therapies.
IMPACT: Abnormal EGFR GCN is a potential biomarker for identifying OPMD that are at risk of malignant transformation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 927-35. ©2016 AACR.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC, acquired resistance to first-/second-generation EGFR inhibitors, and MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥5, MET:CEP7 ≥2, or MET IHC 2+/3+ were randomized to tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). MET-amplified subgroup analysis was preplanned.
RESULTS: Overall (N = 55), median PFS was 4.9 months versus 4.4 months [stratified HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.35-1.28] with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy. In 19 patients with MET amplification (median age 60.4 years; 68.4% never-smokers; median GCN 8.8; median MET/CEP7 2.8; 89.5% with MET IHC 3+), tepotinib plus gefitinib improved PFS (HR, 0.13; 90% CI, 0.04-0.43) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.10; 90% CI, 0.02-0.36) versus chemotherapy. Objective response rate was 66.7% with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus 42.9% with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 19.9 months versus 2.8 months. Median duration of tepotinib plus gefitinib was 11.3 months (range, 1.1-56.5), with treatment >1 year in six (50.0%) and >4 years in three patients (25.0%). Seven patients (58.3%) had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events with tepotinib plus gefitinib and five (71.4%) had chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of INSIGHT suggests improved PFS and OS with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy in a subgroup of patients with MET-amplified EGFR-mutant NSCLC, after progression on EGFR inhibitors.
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.
METHODS: In total, 154 patients (wild-type EGFR, 72 patients; Del19 mutation, 45 patients; and L858R mutation, 37 patients) were retrospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 92 training and 62 test cases. Two support vector machine (SVM) models to distinguish between wild-type and mutant EGFR (mutation [M] classification) as well as between the Del19 and L858R subtypes (subtype [S] classification) were trained using 3DBN features. These features were computed from 3DBN maps by using histogram and texture analyses. The 3DBN maps were generated using computed tomography (CT) images based on the Čech complex constructed on sets of points in the images. These points were defined by coordinates of voxels with CT values higher than several threshold values. The M classification model was built using image features and demographic parameters of sex and smoking status. The SVM models were evaluated by determining their classification accuracies. The feasibility of the 3DBN model was compared with those of conventional radiomic models based on pseudo-3D BN (p3DBN), two-dimensional BN (2DBN), and CT and wavelet-decomposition (WD) images. The validation of the model was repeated with 100 times random sampling.
RESULTS: The mean test accuracies for M classification with 3DBN, p3DBN, 2DBN, CT, and WD images were 0.810, 0.733, 0.838, 0.782, and 0.799, respectively. The mean test accuracies for S classification with 3DBN, p3DBN, 2DBN, CT, and WD images were 0.773, 0.694, 0.657, 0.581, and 0.696, respectively.
CONCLUSION: 3DBN features, which showed a radiogenomic association with the characteristics of the EGFR Del19/L858R mutation subtypes, yielded higher accuracy for subtype classifications in comparison with conventional features.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted based on incident lung cancer cases diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 in Lampang (Thailand), Penang (Malaysia), Singapore and Yogyakarta (Indonesia). Cases (n = 3413) were defined using the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology third edition. In Singapore, a clinical series obtained from the National Cancer Centre was used to identify patients, while corresponding population-based cancer registries were used elsewhere. Tumor and clinical information were abstracted by chart review according to a predefined study protocol. Molecular testing of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement, ROS1 gene rearrangement and BRAF V600 mutation was recorded.
RESULTS: Among 2962 cases with a specified pathological diagnosis (86.8%), most patients had non-squamous NSCLC (75.8%). For cases with staging information (92.1%), the majority presented with metastatic disease (71.3%). Overall, molecular testing rates in the 1528 patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC were 67.0% for EGFR, 42.3% for ALK, 39.1% for ROS1, 7.8% for BRAF and 36.1% for PD-L1. Among these patients, first-line systemic treatment included chemotherapy (25.9%), targeted therapy (35.6%) and immunotherapy (5.9%), with 31% of patients having no record of antitumor treatment. Molecular testing and the proportion of patients receiving treatment were highly heterogenous between the regions.
CONCLUSIONS: This first analysis of data from a clinically annotated registry for lung cancer from four settings in Southeast Asia has demonstrated the feasibility of integrating clinical data within population-based cancer registries. Our study results identify areas where further development could improve patient access to optimal treatment.
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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.
RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles.
CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.
METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.
METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.
RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.