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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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).

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).

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).

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: 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.

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.