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.
AIM: To investigate the regulation of rs10889677 and the role of buparlisib in the PI3K signaling pathway in CAC pathogenesis.
METHODS: Genomic DNA from 32 colonic samples, including CAC (n = 7), UC (n = 10) and CRC (n = 15), was sequenced for the rs10889677 mutation. The mutant and wildtype fragments were amplified and cloned in the pmirGLO vector. The luciferase activity of cloned vectors was assessed after transfection into the HT29 cell line. CAC mice were induced by a mixture of a single azoxymethane injection and three cycles of dextran sulphate sodium, then buparlisib was administered after 14 d. The excised colon was subjected to immunohistochemistry for Ki67 and Cleaved-caspase-3 markers and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis for Pdk1 and Sgk2.
RESULTS: Luciferase activity decreased by 2.07-fold in the rs10889677 mutant, confirming the hypothesis that the variant disrupted miRNA binding sites, which led to an increase in IL23R expression and the activation of the PI3K signaling pathway. Furthermore, CAC-induced mice had a significantly higher disease activity index (P < 0.05). Buparlisib treatment significantly decreased mean weight loss in CAC-induced mice (P < 0.05), reduced the percentage of proliferating cells by 5%, and increased the number of apoptotic cells. The treatment also caused a downward trend of Pdk1 expression and significantly decreased Sgk2 expression.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggested that the rs10889677 variant as a critical initiator of the PI3K signaling pathway, and buparlisib had the ability to prevent PI3K-non-AKT activation in the pathophysiology of CAC.