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.
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: Purification and structure elucidation were carried out by chromatographic and spectroscopic techniques, respectively. MTT and trypan blue exclusion methods were performed to study the cytotoxic activity. Antibacterial activity was conducted by disc diffusion and microdilution methods, whereas antioxidant activities were done by ferric thiocyanate method and DPPH radical scavenging.
RESULTS: The phytochemical study led to the isolation of α,β-mangostin and cycloart-24-en-3β-ol. α-Mangostin exhibited cytotoxic activity against HSC-3 cells with an IC(50) of 0.33 μM. β- and α-mangostin showed activity against K562 cells with IC(50) of 0.40 μM and 0.48 μM, respectively. α-Mangostin was active against Gram-positive bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis) with inhibition zone and MIC value of (19 mm; 0.025 mg/mL) and (20 mm; 0.013 mg/mL), respectively. In antioxidant assay, α-mangostin exhibited activity as an inhibitor of lipid peroxidation.
CONCLUSIONS: G. malaccensis presence α- and β-mangostin and cycloart-24-en-3β-ol. β-Mangostin was found very active against HSC-3 cells and K562. The results suggest that mangostins derivatives have the potential to inhibit the growth of cancer cells by inducing apoptosis. In addition, α-and β-mangostin was found inhibit the growth of Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria and also showed the activity as an inhibitor of lipid peroxidation.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib is an effective first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC with a good response rate and long survival, even in patients with unfavorable clinical characteristics. The side-effects of afatinib were manageable and T790 M mutation was the most common resistance mechanism causing treatment failure.