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: 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.
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.
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.
CASE: A 60-year-old woman presented with abdominal discomfort and hyperleukocytosis. She was diagnosed as CML in the chronic phase with positive BCR-ABL1 transcripts. Due to the failure to obtain an optimal response with imatinib treatment, it was switched to nilotinib. She responded well to nilotinib initially and achieved complete haematological and cytogenetic responses, with undetectable BCR-ABL1 transcripts. However, in 4 years she developed molecular relapse. Mutation analysis which was done 70 months after commencement of nilotinib showed the presence of BCRABL1 kinase domain mutation with nucleotide substitution at position 1187 from Histidine(H) to Proline(P) (H396P). Currently, she is on nilotinib 400mg twice daily. Her latest molecular analysis showed the presence of residual BCR-ABL1 transcripts at 0.22%.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis in CML patients with persistent BCR-ABL1 positivity in spite of treatment. Early detection and identification of the type of BCRABL1 mutation are important to guide appropriate treatment options as different mutation will have different sensitivity to TKI.