RESULTS: In total, 12 different BCR::ABL1 KD mutations were identified by SS in 22.6% (19/84) of patients who were resistant to TKI treatment. Interestingly, NGS analysis of the same patient group revealed an additional four different BCR::ABL1 KD mutations in 27.4% (23/84) of patients. These mutations are M244V, A344V, E355A, and E459K with variant read frequency below 15%. No mutation was detected in 18 patients with optimal response to TKI therapy. Resistance to TKIs is associated with the acquisition of additional mutations in BCR::ABL1 KD after treatment with TKIs. Additionally, the use of NGS is advised for accurately determining the mutation status of BCR::ABL1 KD, particularly in cases where the allele frequency is low, and for identifying mutations across multiple exons simultaneously. Therefore, the utilization of NGS as a diagnostic platform for this test is very promising to guide therapeutic decision-making.
METHODS: We analyzed by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) to determine presence of the MYD88 L265P and CD79B Y196 hotspot mutations in cfDNA isolated from plasma of 24 PCNSL patients with active disease. Corresponding tumor samples were available for 14 cases. Based on the false positive rate observed in 8 healthy control samples, a stringent cut-off for the MYD88 L265P and CD79B Y196 mutation were set at 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively.
RESULTS: MYD88 L265P and CD79B Y196 mutations were detected in 9/14 (64%) and 2/13 (15%) tumor biopsies, respectively. In cfDNA samples, the MYD88 L265P mutation was detected in 3/24 (12.5%), while the CD79B Y196 mutation was not detected in any of the 23 tested cfDNA samples. Overall, MYD88 L265P and/or CD79B Y196 were detected in cfDNA in 3/24 cases (12.5%). The detection rate of the combined analysis did not improve the single detection rate for either MYD88 L265P or CD79B Y196.
CONCLUSION: The low detection rate of MYD88 L265P and CD79B Y196 mutations in cfDNA in the plasma of PCNSL patients argues against its use in routine diagnostics. However, detection of MYD88 L265P by ddPCR in cfDNA in the plasma could be considered in challenging cases.
METHODS: Patients with unexplained pediatric-onset epilepsy were identified from the in-house Severance Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Epilepsy Database. All patients underwent either exome sequencing or multigene panels from January 2017 to December 2019, at Severance Children's Hospital in Korea. Clinical data were extracted from the medical records.
RESULTS: Of the 957 patients studied, 947 (99.0%) were Korean and 570 were male (59.6%). The median age at testing was 4.91 years (interquartile range, 1.53-9.39). The overall diagnostic yield was 32.4% (310/957). Clinical exome sequencing yielded a diagnostic rate of 36.9% (134/363), whereas the epilepsy panel yielded a diagnostic rate of 29.9% (170/569). Diagnostic yield differed across epilepsy syndromes. It was high in Dravet syndrome (87.2%, 41/47) and early infantile developmental epileptic encephalopathy (60.7%, 17/28), but low in West syndrome (21.8%, 34/156) and myoclonic-atonic epilepsy (4.8%, 1/21). The most frequently implicated genes were SCN1A (n = 49), STXBP1 (n = 15), SCN2A (n = 14), KCNQ2 (n = 13), CDKL5 (n = 11), CHD2 (n = 9), SLC2A1 (n = 9), PCDH19 (n = 8), MECP2 (n = 6), SCN8A (n = 6), and PRRT2 (n = 5). The recurrent genetic abnormalities included 15q11.2 deletion/duplication (n = 9), Xq28 duplication (n = 5), PRRT2 deletion (n = 4), MECP2 duplication (n = 3), SCN1A, c.2556+3A>T (n = 3), and 2q24.3 deletion (n = 3).
SIGNIFICANCE: Here we present the results of a large-scale study conducted in East Asia, where we identified several common genes and recurrent variants that varied depending on specific epilepsy syndromes. The overall genetic landscape of the Asian population aligns with findings from other populations of varying ethnicities.
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.
METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.
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.