A Phase Ib/II Trial of Combined BRAF and EGFR Inhibition in BRAF V600E Positive Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Other Cancers: The EVICT (Erlotinib and Vemurafenib In Combination Trial) Study

PURPOSE

BRAF V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer represents a significant clinical problem, with combination approaches being developed clinically with oral BRAF inhibitors combined with EGFR-targeting antibodies. While compelling preclinical data have highlighted the effectiveness of combination therapy with vemurafenib and small-molecule EGFR inhibitors, gefitinib or erlotinib, in colorectal cancer, this therapeutic strategy has not been investigated in clinical studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a phase Ib/II dose-escalation/expansion trial investigating the safety/efficacy of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and EGFR inhibitor erlotinib.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with BRAF V600E positive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 7 patients with other cancers were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in escalation, with vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily with erlotinib 150 mg daily selected as the recommended phase II dose. Among 31 evaluable patients with mCRC and 7 with other cancers, overall response rates were 32% [10/31, 16% (5/31) confirmed] and 43% (3/7), respectively, with clinical benefit rates of 65% and 100%. Early ctDNA dynamics were predictive of treatment efficacy, and serial ctDNA monitoring revealed distinct patterns of convergent genomic evolution associated with acquired treatment resistance, with frequent emergence of MAPK pathway alterations, including polyclonal KRAS, NRAS, and MAP2K1 mutations, and MET amplification.

CONCLUSIONS

The Erlotinib and Vemurafenib In Combination Trial study demonstrated a safe and novel combination of two oral inhibitors targeting BRAF and EGFR. The dynamic assessment of serial ctDNA was a useful measure of underlying genomic changes in response to this combination and in understanding potential mechanisms of resistance.

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRASG12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRASG12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRASG12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRASG12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRASG12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]).

INTERPRETATION

Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRASG12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs.

FUNDING

Amgen.

Optimal first-line treatment for metastatic ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer-a narrative review

Background and Objective

First-line treatment options for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) whose tumors harbour anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements have rapidly evolved from chemotherapy, to the first in class ALK-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib in 2011, and now include no fewer than five Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved ALK inhibitors. However, while superiority to crizotinib has been established, head-to-head clinical trials comparing newer generation ALK inhibitors are lacking, and decisions on optimal first-line treatment must be based on analysis of the relevant trials, with attention to systemic and intracranial efficacy, toxicity profile as well as consideration of patient factors and preferences. Here we aim to synthesise findings from review of these trials and to describe options for optimal first-line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC.

Methods

A literature review of relevant randomised clinical trials was undertaken using Embase database. There were no limitations to time frame or language applied.

Key Content and Findings

Crizotinib was established as the standard of care first-line treatment for patients with ALK+ aNSCLC in 2011. Since this time, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib and lorlatinib have all demonstrated superiority as first-line treatments compared to crizotinib, based on progression free survival, intra-cranial efficacy, and side-effect profiles.

Conclusions

Options for optimal first-line treatment for ALK+ aNSCLC include alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib. This review serves as a resource summarizing data from key clinical trials with ALK inhibitors to aid in decision making when tailoring treatment for patients. Future research in the field includes real world analysis of efficacy and toxicity of next-generation ALK-inhibitors, identification of mechanisms of tumor persistence and acquired resistance, development of novel ALK inhibitors, and use of ALK-TKIs in earlier stage disease.

LOREALAUS: LOrlatinib REAL world AUStralian experience in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

Introduction

Over the past decade, ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have delivered unprecedented survival for individuals with ALK-positive (ALK+) lung cancers. Real-world data enhance the understanding of optimal drug sequencing and expectations for survival.

Methods

Multicenter real-world study of individuals with pretreated advanced ALK+ lung cancers managed on a lorlatinib access program between 2016 and 2020. Key outcomes were lorlatinib efficacy, tolerability, and treatment sequencing. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method among all individuals (PFSa and OSa), with at least 30 days (one-cycle) lorlatinib exposure (PFSb and OSb), and with good performance status (PFSc and OSc). Subgroups of interest were analyzed to assess signals of potential clinical applicability. Two OS index dates were analyzed, from lorlatinib initiation and advanced ALK+ diagnosis.

Results

The population (N = 38, 10 sites) was heavily pretreated (23 had ≥2 previous treatment lines) with a high disease burden (26 had 2-4 sites and 11 had >4 sites of metastatic disease, 19 had brain metastases). The overall response rate was 44% and the disease control rate was 81%. Lorlatinib dose reduction (18%), interruption (16%), and discontinuation (3%) were consistent with the trial experience. From advanced ALK+ diagnosis, the median OS for populations a, b, and c was 45.0 months, 69.9 months and 61.2 months respectively. From lorlatinib initiation, the median PFSa, PFSb and PFSc was 7.3 months, 13.2 months and 27.7 months and the median OSa, OSb and OSc was 19.9 months, 25.1 months and 27.7 months. The median PFSa with versus without brain metastases was 34.6 months versus 5.8 months (p = 0.09). The intracranial median PFS was 14.2 months. Previous good response versus poor response to the first ALK-directed therapy median PFSa was 27.7 months versus 4.7 months with a hazard ratio of 0.3 (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Lorlatinib is a potent, highly active brain-penetrant third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with benefits for most individuals in the later-line setting in a real-world evaluation, consistent with clinical trial data.

Selpercatinib in Patients With RET Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Safety and Efficacy From the Registrational LIBRETTO-001 Phase I/II Trial

PURPOSE

Selpercatinib, a first-in-class, highly selective, and potent CNS-active RET kinase inhibitor, is currently approved for the treatment of patients with RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We provide a registrational data set update in more than double (n = 316) of the original reported population (n = 144) and better characterization of long-term efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled to LIBRETTO-001, a phase I/II, single-arm, open-label study of selpercatinib in patients with RET-altered cancers. An analysis of patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, including 69 treatment-naive and 247 with prior platinum-based chemotherapy, was performed. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1, independent review committee). Secondary end points included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

In treatment-naive patients, the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 73 to 92); 6% achieved complete responses (CRs). The median DoR was 20.2 months (95% CI, 13.0 to could not be evaluated); 40% of responses were ongoing at the data cutoff (median follow-up of 20.3 months). The median PFS was 22.0 months; 35% of patients were alive and progression-free at the data cutoff (median follow-up of 21.9 months). In platinum-based chemotherapy pretreated patients, the ORR was 61% (95% CI, 55 to 67); 7% achieved CRs. The median DoR was 28.6 months (95% CI, 20.4 to could not be evaluated); 49% of responses were ongoing (median follow-up of 21.2 months). The median PFS was 24.9 months; 38% of patients were alive and progression-free (median follow-up of 24.7 months). Of 26 patients with measurable baseline CNS metastasis by the independent review committee, the intracranial ORR was 85% (95% CI, 65 to 96); 27% were CRs. In the full safety population (n = 796), the median treatment duration was 36.1 months. The safety profile of selpercatinib was consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort with extended follow-up, selpercatinib continued to demonstrate durable and robust responses, including intracranial activity, in previously treated and treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.

A comparison of DNA sequencing and gene expression profiling to assist tissue of origin diagnosis in cancer of unknown primary

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a syndrome defined by clinical absence of a primary cancer after standardised investigations. Gene expression profiling (GEP) and DNA sequencing have been used to predict primary tissue of origin (TOO) in CUP and find molecularly guided treatments; however, a detailed comparison of the diagnostic yield from these two tests has not been described. Here, we compared the diagnostic utility of RNA and DNA tests in 215 CUP patients (82% received both tests) in a prospective Australian study. Based on retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data, 77% (166/215) of CUPs had insufficient evidence to support TOO diagnosis (clinicopathology unresolved). The remainder had either a latent primary diagnosis (10%) or clinicopathological evidence to support a likely TOO diagnosis (13%) (clinicopathology resolved). We applied a microarray (CUPGuide) or custom NanoString 18-class GEP test to 191 CUPs with an accuracy of 91.5% in known metastatic cancers for high-medium confidence predictions. Classification performance was similar in clinicopathology-resolved CUPs - 80% had high-medium predictions and 94% were concordant with pathology. Notably, only 56% of the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs had high-medium confidence GEP predictions. Diagnostic DNA features were interrogated in 201 CUP tumours guided by the cancer type specificity of mutations observed across 22 cancer types from the AACR Project GENIE database (77,058 tumours) as well as mutational signatures (e.g. smoking). Among the clinicopathology-unresolved CUPs, mutations and mutational signatures provided additional diagnostic evidence in 31% of cases. GEP classification was useful in only 13% of cases and oncoviral detection in 4%. Among CUPs where genomics informed TOO, lung and biliary cancers were the most frequently identified types, while kidney tumours were another identifiable subset. In conclusion, DNA and RNA profiling supported an unconfirmed TOO diagnosis in one-third of CUPs otherwise unresolved by clinicopathology assessment alone. DNA mutation profiling was the more diagnostically informative assay. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG) Expert Consensus Statement on MET Alterations in NSCLC: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease, with many oncogenic driver mutations, including de novo mutations in the Mesenchymal Epithelial Transition (MET) gene (specifically in Exon 14 [ex14]), that lead to tumourigenesis. Acquired alterations in the MET gene, specifically MET amplification is also associated with the development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Although MET has become an actionable biomarker with the availability of MET-specific inhibitors in selected countries, there is differential accessibility to diagnostic platforms and targeted therapies across countries in Asia-Pacific (APAC). The Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), an interdisciplinary group of experts from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mainland China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam, discussed testing for MET alterations and considerations for using MET-specific inhibitors at a consensus meeting in January 2022, and in subsequent offline consultation. Consensus recommendations are provided by the ATORG group to address the unmet need for standardised approaches to diagnosing MET alterations in NSCLC and for using these therapies. MET inhibitors may be considered for first-line or second or subsequent lines of treatment for patients with advanced and metastatic NSCLC harbouring MET ex14 skipping mutations; MET ex14 testing is preferred within multi-gene panels for detecting targetable driver mutations in NSCLC. For patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and MET amplification leading to EGFR TKI resistance, enrolment in combination trials of EGFR TKIs and MET inhibitors is encouraged.

Efficacy and safety of first-line lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated analysis of data from the phase 3, randomised, open-label CROWN study

BACKGROUND

After a median follow-up of 18·3 months, the third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, lorlatinib, improved progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here we report updated efficacy data, including intracranial activity, from an unplanned analysis after 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

CROWN is an ongoing, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial done in 104 centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older or aged 20 years and older (depending on local regulations) with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease, had at least one extracranial measurable target lesion (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST], version 1.1), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by the presence or absence of brain metastasis, and by ethnicity. Since the primary endpoint of the study had been met at the planned interim analysis, no further formal analysis of progression-free survival was planned, per protocol. The current unplanned analysis was done to further characterise tumour-related endpoints with a longer follow-up and is presented descriptively. For the planned study, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, duration of response, intracranial duration of response, and safety. Efficacy endpoints were also assessed by the presence or absence of baseline brain metastases. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608.

FINDINGS

Between May 11, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 425 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 296 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the lorlatinib (n=149) or crizotinib (n=147) group. At data cutoff for this unplanned analysis (Sept 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 36·7 months (IQR 31·3-41·9) for lorlatinib and 29·3 months (10·8-35·0) for crizotinib. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was not reached (95% CI not reached-not reached) for lorlatinib and was 9·3 months (7·6-11·1) for crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·27 [95% CI 0·18-0·39]). 3-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 55-71) in the lorlatinib group and 19% (12-27) in the crizotinib group. Progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, and duration of response were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n=37 lorlatinib; n=39 crizotinib), the HR for time to intracranial progression for lorlatinib versus crizotinib was 0·10 (95% CI 0·04-0·27); in patients without baseline brain metastases (n=112 lorlatinib; n=108 crizotinib), the HR was 0·02 (95% CI 0·002-0·14). In patients without brain metastases, one (1%) in the lorlatinib group and 25 (23%) in the crizotinib group had intracranial progression. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 113 (76%) of 149 patients (most commonly due to altered lipid levels) with lorlatinib and in 81 (57%) of 142 patients with crizotinib. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 11 (7%) patients in the lorlatinib group and 14 (10%) patients in the crizotinib group. There were no new safety signals.

INTERPRETATION

These updated, long-term data from CROWN show the durable benefit of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and support the use of first-line lorlatinib in patients with and without baseline brain metastases.

FUNDING

Pfizer.

Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib versus crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Quality of life (QoL) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is negatively impacted by their disease and treatment side effects. We present detailed patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the phase 3 CROWN study, which compared lorlatinib with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire with Lung Cancer module. A longitudinal, random-intercept, random-slope, mixed-effect model assessed score changes from baseline up to (not including) end of treatment. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline at each cycle were calculated and presented up to cycle 18 (≥ 10-point change considered clinically meaningful).

RESULTS

In both lorlatinib (n = 148) and crizotinib (n = 140) arms, there were longitudinal improvements across multiple functioning and symptom scores during treatment compared with pre-treatment. Numerical improvements for most longitudinal functioning scores (physical, role, emotional, social) favored lorlatinib; cognitive functioning favored crizotinib. Numerical improvements favored lorlatinib for several symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea [clinically meaningful improvement], and cough); peripheral neuropathy favored crizotinib. Subgroup analyses showed PROs did not differ by presence/absence of baseline brain metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving first-line lorlatinib or crizotinib showed improvements and delayed deterioration in QoL, functioning, and several symptoms. Alongside the previously reported significantly longer progression-free survival and higher intracranial response rates for lorlatinib versus crizotinib, these data further support the use of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with/without baseline brain metastases and provide evidence of several QoL improvements with lorlatinib when used in the first-line setting.

Post Hoc Analysis of Lorlatinib Intracranial Efficacy and Safety in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Phase III CROWN Study

PURPOSE

Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted.

RESULTS

PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% v 22% and 78% v 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% v 72%) and without (1% v 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS.

CONCLUSION

First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.

Prognostic stratification of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer based on CD103+ immune cell abundance in patients treated on TROG 12.01 and De-ESCALaTE randomized trials

BACKGROUND

High CD103+ intratumoral immune cell (ITIC) abundance is associated with better prognosis in unselected patients with human papilloma virus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-associated OPSCC) treated with cisplatin and radiotherapy (CIS/RT). Substituting cetuximab (CETUX) for CIS with RT in HPV-associated OPSCC resulted in inferior efficacy. Our aim was to determine whether quantification of CD103 ITIC could be used to identify a population of HPV-associated OPSCC with superior prognosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We pooled data from the TROG 12.01 and De-ESCALaTE randomized trials that compared CETUX/70GyRT with CIS/70GyRT in low-risk HPV-associated OPSCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer 7 stage III (excluding T1-2N1) or stage IV (excluding N2b-c if smoking history >10 pack-years and/or distant metastases), including all patients with available tumor samples. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (FFS) in patients receiving CETUX/RT comparing CD103+ ITIC high (≥30%) versus low (<30%). High and low CD103 were compared using Cox regression adjusting for age, stage and trial.

RESULTS

Tumor samples were available in 159/182 patients on TROG 12.01 and 145/334 on De-ESCALaTE. CD103+ ITIC abundance was high in 27% of patients. The median follow-up was 3.2 years. The 3-year FFS in patients treated with CETUX/RT was 93% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79% to 98%] in high CD103 and 74% (95% CI 63% to 81%) in low CD103 [adjusted hazard ratio = 0.22 (95% CI 0.12-0.41), P < 0.001]. The 3-year overall survival in patients treated with CETUX/RT was 100% in high CD103 and 86% (95% CI 76% to 92%) in low CD103, P < 0.001. In patients treated with CIS/RT, there was no significant difference in FFS.

CONCLUSIONS

CD103+ ITIC expression separates CETUX/RT-treated low-risk HPV-associated OPSCC into excellent and poor prognosis subgroups. The high CD103 population is a rational target for de-intensification trials.

Abstract CT037: Canakinumab in combination with first-line (1L) pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): Results from the CANOPY-1 phase 3 trial

Background: Pembrolizumab improves overall survival (OS) when added to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with aNSCLC. However, progression-free survival (PFS) and OS remain disappointing for most patients and can vary depending on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. This highlights the need for additional therapeutic options. Canakinumab is a monoclonal anti-interleukin-1β antibody that inhibits pro-tumor inflammation and potentially enhances anti-tumor immune responses, with the potential to synergize with programmed death 1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy.

Methods: CANOPY-1 is a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study investigating the addition of canakinumab or placebo (PBO) to 1L pembrolizumab + PDC. Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/C or IV NSCLC, of any histology and no known EGFR or ALK alterations, were randomized 1:1 and stratified based on PD-L1 status, geographic region, and histology to canakinumab 200 mg or PBO every 3 weeks, plus pembrolizumab and histology-guided PDC for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance canakinumab or PBO, with pembrolizumab ± pemetrexed. The primary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1) and OS. Exploratory biomarker analyses were also investigated and will be presented at the time of the congress. The cut-off dates for these analyses were May 18, 2020 (PFS) and August 9, 2021 (OS).

Results: A total of 643 patients were randomized to canakinumab (n=320) or PBO (n=323) in combination with pembrolizumab + PDC. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. Median PFS was 6.8 months for both treatment arms (HR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.67-1.09; one-sided P=0.102). Median OS was 20.8 and 20.2 months for the canakinumab and PBO arms, respectively (HR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.70-1.10; one-sided P=0.123). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were reported for 205 (64.1%) patients in the canakinumab arm and 191 (59.3%) patients in the PBO arm, and fatal AEs were reported for 37 (11.6%) and 47 (14.6%) patients, respectively. AEs (any grade) leading to discontinuation of any study drug were reported for 72 (22.5%) patients in the canakinumab arm and 61 (18.9%) patients in the PBO arm.

Conclusions: The addition of canakinumab to pembrolizumab plus PDC did not statistically improve PFS nor OS for 1L treatment of patients with aNSCLC. No unexpected safety findings were observed with the addition of canakinumab to pembrolizumab plus PDC.

Citation Format: Daniel S. Tan, Enriqueta Felip, Gilberto Castro, Benjamin J. Solomon, Alastair Greystoke, Byoungchul Cho, Manuel Cobo, Tae Min Kim, Sandip Ganguly, Enric Carcereny, Luis Paz-Ares, Jaafar Bennouna, Marina Garassino, Michael Schenker, Sang-We Kim, Bijoyesh Mookerje, Vanessa Q. Passos, Stephanie Deudon, Bharani Dharan, Yuanbo Song, Rafael Caparica, Bruce E. Johnson. Canakinumab in combination with first-line (1L) pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): Results from the CANOPY-1 phase 3 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT037.

Risk assessment model potency to detect patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis: An application of the TARGET-TP score

12116

Background: Interventional trials applying risk models for targeted-thromboprophylaxis (TP) for ambulatory cancer patients have previously excluded low risk patients, preventing quantification of residual risk and unmet need. We compare potency and pragmatic application of risk models, to guide routine clinical utilisation. Methods: TARGET-TP, a three arm phase 3 randomized trial of TP, classified ambulatory lung and gastrointestinal cancer patients into high or low thromboembolism (TE) risk groups using an algorithm derived from fibrinogen and d-dimer levels. High risk patients (randomized arms) received enoxaparin or no TP. Low risk patients were enrolled as an observation arm. Risk model potency was assessed by comparing cumulative TE incidence at 180 days between the two arms not receiving enoxaparin. In this analysis, we also compared other risk models using published risk thresholds (Khorana Score (KS), PROTECHT, CONKO, CATS/MICA) using associations of predicted TE risk with observed TE events (cause specific Cox proportional hazards regression), sensitivity and specificity. Results: Among 328 patients, 200 (61%) were classified high TE risk using the TARGET-TP algorithm. Without TP, TE incidence was 23% among high risk and 8% low risk patients – compared to 8% in high risk enoxaparin treated patients. There was notable cohort migration, with individual patients reclassified between high- and low-risk across other risk. Up to 75% of TARGET-TP high risk patients were classified low risk by other models, and would not be considered for TP, potentially exposing substantive residual TE risk (75% low risk by CATS/MICA, 61% KS, 60% CONKO, 32% PROTECHT). Up to 57% of low risk patients were high risk by other models, potentially exposing unnecessarily to TP (57% high risk by PROTECHT, 27% KS, 26% CONKO, 5% CATS/MICA). Among 228 patients in TARGET-TP trial non-intervention arms: TE incidence and comparative risk (hazard ratio, HR) for high versus low TE risk were: TARGET-TP (23% high vs. 8% low, HR 3.33 [95%CI 1.58-6.99]), KS (17% vs. 13%, HR 1. 50 [95%CI 0.74-3.02]), PROTECHT (16% vs. 12%, HR 1.50 [95%CI 0.69-3.05]), CONKO (18% vs. 13%, HR 1.54 [95%CI 0.76-3.09]), CATS/MICA (26% vs. 12%, HR 2.72 [95%CI 1.26-5.86]). Sensitivity and specificity respectively: TARGET-TP 70%/61%, KS 39%/68%, PROTECHT 70%/37%, CONKO 39%/69%, CATS/MICA 27%/87%. Conclusions: Application of TE risk models demonstrated some ineffectual and if utilised to define TP eligibility, 4/5 would exclude patient cohorts with TE rates exceeding 10%. TARGET-TP was the only model to achieve both high sensitivity and specificity. This simple pragmatic model considers only d-dimer and fibrinogen, can be applied without complex calculations or nomograms, in real-time for any patient. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12618000811202.

Progression-free survival with subsequent anticancer therapies from a phase 3 trial of lorlatinib in treatment-naive patients (pts) with ALK+ advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

9069

Background: Lorlatinib, a brain-penetrant, third generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs crizotinib in a phase 3 study in pts with previously untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC (CROWN; NCT03052608). This study investigated the efficacy of treatments following progression on lorlatinib or crizotinib from the CROWN trial. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was PFS assessed per blinded independent central review, and secondary endpoints included time from randomization to the date of progression of disease on first subsequent systemic anticancer therapy or death (PFS2). Results: As of September 20, 2021, 91 of 149 patients (61.1%) vs 12 of 147 patients (8.2%) were still receiving lorlatinib vs crizotinib, respectively. In the lorlatinib arm, 33 of 149 patients (22.1%) received ≥1 subsequent systemic anticancer therapy vs 103 of 147 patients (70.1%) in the crizotinib arm. Among the patients who received subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, most patients in both treatment arms received ALK TKIs as first subsequent treatment: 63.6% and 93.2% in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms. Chemotherapy was administered as first subsequent therapy to 36.3% and 2.9% of the patients, respectively. Median duration of treatment on first subsequent anticancer therapy was 9.6 months (IQR, 2.9-18.1 months) for lorlatinib arm and 13.3 months (IQR, 4.8-21.2 months) for crizotinib arm. Median PFS2 was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR-NR) in the lorlatinib arm and was 39.6 months (95% CI, 27.4-NR) in the crizotinib arm, with a hazard ratio for lorlatinib vs crizotinib of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.30-0.67). Conclusions: While subsequent anticancer therapies offered clinical benefit in both treatment arms, PFS2 results indicated that clinical benefit was prolonged with lorlatinib vs crizotinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03052608.

Phase 3 trial of lorlatinib in treatment-naive patients (Pts) with ALK-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Comprehensive plasma and tumor genomic analyses

9070

Background: Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has shown overall and intracranial activity in ALK+ advanced NSCLC. In the randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study in pts with previously untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC (CROWN; NCT03052608), lorlatinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs crizotinib (Shaw AT, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2018-2029). Comprehensive molecular profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue was performed to identify molecular correlates of response. Methods: At baseline (BL), plasma samples were available from 134 and 129 pts in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively. Analyses returned results for tumor tissue (archived or new biopsy) from 147 pts across both arms. Plasma and tumor DNA were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS; Guardant360 and TissueNext, respectively, Guardant Health, Inc.). Objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and PFS based on the September 20, 2021, cutoff, all assessed by blinded independent central review, were summarized according to mutation and tumor mutation burden (TMB) status. Results: At BL, 22% of pts had no detectable ctDNA. ALK missense mutations (n=19) or deletion (n=1) were detected in plasma of 12 pts (n=5 and 7 in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively). Most pts harbored 1 mutation, but 3 pts harbored ≥3 mutations. In tumor samples, no somatic ALK mutation was detected. ALK fusions were detected in plasma of 48% of pts and in tumor of 80%. EML4-ALK variant (v) subtypes were highly concordant between ctDNA and tumor tissue. Based on ctDNA, ORRs were generally higher in the lorlatinib vs crizotinib arm, reaching 80% and 72% for EML4-ALK v1 and v3, respectively, in the lorlatinib arm, and 50% and 74% in the crizotinib arm. Median PFS was not reached for v1 in the lorlatinib arm and was 7.4 mo in the crizotinib arm; for v3, mPFS was 33.3 and 5.5 mo, respectively. TP53 mutations were found in 42% of pts with detectable ctDNA, and their presence did not seem to influence lorlatinib activity. In the crizotinib arm, absence of TP53 mutations led to longer PFS. These findings are being verified in tumor tissue. A pt treated with lorlatinib with an ongoing partial response in tumor lesions at the data cutoff date was found to have a KRAS G12V mutation and the presence of ALK fusion in tumor tissue but had no ctDNA detected at BL. Conclusions: Pts with untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC had higher ORRs and potentially longer PFS across predefined biomarker subgroups when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib in the phase 3 CROWN study. Based on pretreatment ctDNA and tumor tissue analyses, lorlatinib led to strong clinical benefit regardless of the type of ALK rearrangement or presence of potential driver co-mutation. Clinical trial information: NCT03052608.

Standard-Dose Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Adenocarcinoma With Leptomeningeal Disease

PURPOSE

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant lung adenocarcinoma is associated with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Osimertinib is a potent third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor with confirmed CNS penetration. This study reports on outcomes of patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer who developed LMD and were subsequently treated with osimertinib.

METHODS

We identified patients treated with osimertinib 80 mg PO daily under a compassionate access scheme across nine tertiary Australian institutes between July 2017 and July 2020. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment history were collected. Median overall survival, median progression-free survival, disease control rates (DCR), and overall response rates (ORR) were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed and descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were analyzed of which 74% were female. Exon 19 deletions (49%) and L858R point mutations (41%) were the most common EGFR mutations. Forty-nine percentage of patients were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1. The median duration of osimertinib therapy was 6 months. The extracranial DCR and ORR were 60% and 54%, and the intracranial DCR and ORR were 68% and 53%, respectively. Median overall survival was 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.17 to 15.05 months).

CONCLUSION

There are limited treatment options for LMD in EGFR-positive lung cancer, and osimertinib at a dose of 80 mg daily is an active therapeutic option for these patients.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (<I>ALK</I>)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Plain language summary of the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib for people with untreated non-small cell lung cancer

This is a summary of a research study (known as a clinical trial) called CROWN. The study tested two medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib in participants with untreated non-small cell lung cancer that had spread to other parts of their body. All those who took part had changes in a gene called ALK, which is involved in cell growth. In total, 296 participants from 23 countries took part. Half the participants took lorlatinib and half took crizotinib. After participants started taking lorlatinib or crizotinib, they were checked regularly to see if their tumors had grown or spread to other parts of their body (known as tumor progression) and to monitor any side effects. After 1 year of treatment, the participants who took lorlatinib were twice as likely to be alive with no tumor growth as the participants who took crizotinib. More participants who took lorlatinib had cancer that shrank (76%) compared with the participants who took crizotinib (58%). This was also true of the participants whose cancer had spread to their brain. The most common side effects in participants who took lorlatinib were increases in the amount of cholesterol and triglycerides (a type of fat) in their blood, swelling, weight gain, nerve damage, unclear thoughts, and diarrhea. Among the participants who took crizotinib, the most common side effects were diarrhea, feeling like you want to throw up, sight problems, swelling, vomiting, changes in liver function, and feeling tired. Overall, the CROWN study showed that fewer participants with advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer died or had tumor growth with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT03052608.

Biology and Treatment Advances in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer diagnosed worldwide. CSCC is generally localized and managed with local therapies such as excision and/or radiotherapy. For patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, recent improvements in our understanding of the underlying biology have led to significant advancements in treatment approaches-including the use of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI)-which have resulted in substantial gains in response and survival compared to traditional cytotoxic approaches. However, there is a lack of understanding of the biology underpinning CSCC in immunocompromised patients, in whom the risk of developing CSCC is hundreds of times higher compared to immunocompetent patients. Furthermore, current ICI approaches are associated with significant risk of graft rejection in organ transplant recipients who make up a significant proportion of immunocompromised patients. Ongoing scientific and clinical research efforts are needed in order to maintain momentum to increase our understanding and refine our therapeutic approaches for patients with CSCC.

Melanoma brain metastases that progress on BRAF-MEK inhibitors demonstrate resistance to ipilimumab-nivolumab that is associated with the Innate PD-1 Resistance Signature (IPRES)

Background

Melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are a challenging clinical problem with high morbidity and mortality. Although first-line dabrafenib–trametinib and ipilimumab–nivolumab have similar intracranial response rates (50%–55%), central nervous system (CNS) resistance to BRAF-MEK inhibitors (BRAF-MEKi) usually occurs around 6 months, and durable responses are only seen with combination immunotherapy. We sought to investigate the utility of ipilimumab–nivolumab after MBM progression on BRAF-MEKi and identify mechanisms of resistance.

Methods

Patients who received first-line ipilimumab–nivolumab for MBMs or second/third line ipilimumab–nivolumab for intracranial metastases with BRAF^V600 mutations with prior progression on BRAF-MEKi and MRI brain staging from March 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 were included. Modified intracranial RECIST was used to assess response. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples of BRAF^V600 mutant MBMs that were naïve to systemic treatment (n=18) or excised after progression on BRAF-MEKi (n=14) underwent whole transcriptome sequencing. Comparative analyses of MBMs naïve to systemic treatment versus BRAF-MEKi progression were performed.

Results

Twenty-five and 30 patients who received first and second/third line ipilimumab–nivolumab, were included respectively. Median sum of MBM diameters was 13 and 20.5 mm for the first and second/third line ipilimumab–nivolumab groups, respectively. Intracranial response rate was 75.0% (12/16), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 41.6 months for first-line ipilimumab–nivolumab. Efficacy of second/third line ipilimumab-nivolumab after BRAF-MEKi progression was poor with an intracranial response rate of 4.8% (1/21) and median PFS of 1.3 months. Given the poor activity of ipilimumab–nivolumab after BRAF-MEKi MBM progression, we performed whole transcriptome sequencing to identify mechanisms of drug resistance. We identified a set of 178 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between naïve and MBMs with progression on BRAF-MEKi treatment (p value <0.05, false discovery rate (FDR) <0.1). No distinct pathways were identified from gene set enrichment analyses using Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, Gene Ontogeny or Hallmark libraries; however, enrichment of DEG from the Innate Anti-PD1 Resistance Signature (IPRES) was identified (p value=0.007, FDR=0.03).

Conclusions

Second-line ipilimumab–nivolumab for MBMs after BRAF-MEKi progression has poor activity. MBMs that are resistant to BRAF-MEKi that also conferred resistance to second-line ipilimumab–nivolumab showed enrichment of the IPRES gene signature.

Local ablative therapies in oligometastatic NSCLC-upfront or outback?-a narrative review

Patients with oligometastatic (OM) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have favorable outcomes compared to patients presenting with diffuse metastatic disease. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated safety and efficacy signals for local ablative therapies with radiotherapy, surgery, or radiofrequency ablation for OM-NSCLC patients alongside systemic therapies. However, it remains unclear whether local ablative therapy (LAT) should be offered either upfront preceding systemic therapies or following initial systemic therapies as local consolidative therapy (LCT). Establishing optimal timing of RT and systemic therapy combinations is essential to maximize efficacy while maintaining safety. Most published randomized trial evidence surrounding the benefits of LAT and systemic therapies were generated from OM-NSCLC patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy agents. With increasing use of novel agents such as targeted therapies (i.e., tyrosine kinase inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors in management of metastatic NSCLC patients, LAT timing may need to be modulated based on the use of specific agents. This narrative review will discuss the current evidence on either upfront LAT or LCT for OM-NSCLC based on published trials and cohort studies. We briefly explored the possible biological mechanisms of the potential clinical advantages of either approach. This review also summarized the ongoing trials incorporating both upfront LAT and LCT, and considerations for future LAT strategies.