Methods: Three semi-synthetic series of compounds (C1-4, P1-4, and G1-4) were prepared and evaluated biologically as potential dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and COX-2 inhibitors. The main phenolic constituents of Amaranthus spinosus L. (p-coumaric, caffeic and gallic) acids have been isolated and subsequently subjected to diazo coupling with various amines to get novel three chemical scaffolds with potential anticancer activities.
Results: Compounds C4 and G4 showed superior inhibitory activity against EGFR (IC50: 0.9 and 0.5 µM, respectively) and displayed good COX-2 inhibition (IC50: 4.35 and 2.47 µM, respectively). Moreover, the final compounds were further evaluated for their cytotoxic activity against human colon cancer (HT-29), pancreatic cancer (PaCa-2), human malignant melanoma (A375), lung cancer (H-460), and pancreatic ductal cancer (Panc-1) cell lines. Interestingly, compounds C4 and G4 exhibited the highest cytotoxic activity with average IC50 values of 1.5 µM and 2.8 µM against H-460 and Panc-1, respectively. The virtual docking study was conducted to gain proper understandings of the plausible-binding modes of target compounds within EGFR and COX-2 binding sites.
Discussion: The NMR of prepared compounds showed characteristic peaks that confirmed the structure of the target compounds. The synthesized benzoxazolyl scaffold containing compounds showed inhibitory activities for both COXs and EGFR which are consistent with the virtual docking study.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).
METHODS: Patients with CML were recruited from outpatient haematological clinics at the national centre of intervention and referral for haematological conditions and a public teaching hospital. The health-related quality of life or utility scores were derived using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costing data were obtained from the Ministry of Health Malaysia Casemix MalaysianDRG. Imatinib and nilotinib drug costs were obtained from the administration of the participating hospitals and pharmaceutical company.
RESULTS: Of the 221 respondents in this study, 68.8% were imatinib users. The total care provider cost for CML treatment was USD23,014.40 for imatinib and USD43,442.69 for nilotinib. The governmental financial assistance programme reduced the total care provider cost to USD13,693.51 for imatinib and USD19,193.45 for nilotinib. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 17.87 and 20.91 per imatinib and nilotinib user, respectively. Nilotinib had a higher drug cost than imatinib, yet its users had better life expectancy, utility score, and QALYs. Imatinib yielded the lowest cost per QALYs at USD766.29.
CONCLUSION: Overall, imatinib is more cost-effective than nilotinib for treating CML in Malaysia from the care provider's perspective. The findings demonstrate the importance of cancer drug funding assistance for ensuring that the appropriate treatments are accessible and affordable and that patients with cancer use and benefit from such patient assistance programmes. To establish effective health expenditure, drug distribution inequality should be addressed.
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.