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%).

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.

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).

PURPOSE: This study outlines CuE's cytotoxic activity against drug-resistant tumor cell lines. Three members of ABC transporters superfamily, P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) and ABCB5 were investigated, whose overexpression in tumors is tightly linked to multidrug resistance. Further factors of drug resistance studied were the tumor suppressor TP53 and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

METHODS: Cytotoxicity assays (resazurin assays) were used to investigate the activity of Citrullus colocynthis and CuE towards multidrug resistant cancer cells. Molecular docking (In silico) has been carried out to explore the CuE's mode of binding to ABC transporters (P-gp, BCRP and ABCB5). The visualization of doxorubicin uptake was done by a Spinning Disc Confocal Microscope. The assessment of proteins expression was done by western blotting analysis. COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses were applied to identify, which genes correlate with sensitivity or resistance to cucurbitacins (CuA, CuB, CuE, CuD, CuI, and CuK).

RESULTS: Multidrug-resistant cells overexpressing P-gp or BCRP were cross-resistant to CuE. By contrast, TP53 knock-out cells were sensitive to CuE. Remarkably, resistant cells transfected with oncogenic ΔEGFR or ABCB5 were hypersensitive (collateral sensitive) to CuE. In silico analyses demonstrated that CuE is a substrate for P-gp and BCRP. Immunoblot analyses highlighted that CuE targeted EGFR and silenced its downstream signaling cascades. The most striking result that emerged from the doxorubicin uptake by ABCB5 overexpressing cells is that CuE is an effective inhibitor for ABCB5 transporter when compared with verapamil. The COMPARE analyses of transcriptome-wide expression profiles of tumor cell lines of the NCI identified common genes involved in cell cycle regulation, cellular adhesion and intracellular communication for different cucurbitacins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.