Clinical Outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With BRAF, ERBB2/HER2, MET , or RET Alterations: A Systematic Literature Review

Novel molecular subtypes of METex14 non-small cell lung cancer with distinct biological and clinical significance

Not all MET exon 14 skipping (METex14) NSCLC patients benefited from MET inhibitors. We hypothesized an inter-tumoral heterogeneity in METex14 NSCLC. Investigations at genomic and transcriptomic level were conducted in METex14 NSCLC samples from stage I-III and recurrent/metastatic patients as discovery and validation cohort. Four molecular subtypes were discovered. MET-Driven subtype, with the worst prognosis, displayed MET overexpression, enrichment of MET-related pathways, and higher infiltration of fibroblast and regulatory T cells. Immune-Activated subtype having the most idea long-term survival, had higher tertiary lymphoid structures, spatial co-option of PD-L1+ cancer cells, and GZMK+ CD8+ T cell. FGFR- and Bypass-Activated subtypes displayed FGFR2 overexpression and enrichments of multiple oncogenic pathways respectively. In the validation cohort, patients with MET-Driven subtype had better response to MET inhibitors than those with MET overexpression. Thus, molecular subtypes of METex14 NSCLC with distinct biological and clinical significance may indicate more precise therapeutic strategies for METex14 NSCLC patients.

Pathways and targeting avenues of BRAF in non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

BRAF is a serine-threonine kinase implicated in the regulation of MAPK signaling cascade. BRAF mutation-driven activation occurs in approximately 2-4% of treatment-naive non-small cell carcinomas (NSCLCs). BRAF upregulation is also often observed in tumors with acquired resistance to receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the spectrum of BRAF mutations and their functional roles, discusses treatment options available for BRAF p.V600 and non-V600 mutated NSCLCs, and identifies some gaps in the current knowledge.

EXPERT OPINION

Administration of combined BRAF/MEK inhibitors usually produces significant, although often a short-term, benefit to NSCLC patients with BRAF V600 (class 1) mutations. There are no established treatments for BRAF class 2 (L597, K601, G464, G469A/V/R/S, fusions, etc.) and class 3 (D594, G596, G466, etc.) mutants, which account for up to two-thirds of BRAF-driven NSCLCs. Many important issues related to the use of immune therapy for the management of BRAF-mutated NSCLC deserve further investigation. The rare occurrence of BRAF mutations in NSCLC is compensated by high overall incidence of lung cancer disease; therefore, clinical studies on BRAF-associated NSCLC are feasible.

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors or not as advanced non-small cell lung cancer treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. Combined anlotinib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy may have synergistic antitumor effects in NSCLC. This study aimed to comparing the efficacy and safety of anlotinib and ICIs treatment, monotherapy and combination in NSCLC.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 14 studies involving 4,308 NSCLC patients across four regimens: anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, and placebo. Efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), TRAE grade three or higher (TRAE ≥3). Analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3 and R 3.5.1 (gemtc package). P<0.05 or effect estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI) that did not include 1 indicated statistical significance.

Results

Fourteen publications involving 4,308 patients across four treatment regimens (anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, placebo) were included. For PFS, network meta-analysis showed all three interventions significantly improved PFS versus placebo. Anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest PFS improvement [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.36], followed by anlotinib (HR =0.37; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.58), and ICIs (HR =0.43; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.67). For OS, compared to placebo, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest OS improvement (HR =0.52; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.74), followed by anlotinib (HR =0.66; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.95), and ICIs (HR =0.72; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.97). For ORR, anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest improvement versus placebo [odds ratio (OR) =5.29; 95% CI: 3.32, 8.58], followed by anlotinib (OR =4.38; 95% CI: 2.42, 8.19), and ICIs (OR =2.17; 95% CI: 1.65, 2.89). For DCR, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest improvement versus placebo (OR =13.32; 95% CI: 4.99, 45.09), followed by anlotinib (OR =5.56; 95% CI: 2.17, 14.38), and ICIs (OR =3.46; 95% CI: 1.29, 10.85). Compared to placebo, anlotinib was associated with the highest risk of TRAEs (OR =3.67, 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), followed by ICIs (OR =1.83; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.69). Due to lack of data on anlotinib plus ICIs, no comparison was conducted. For grade ≥3 TRAEs, compared to placebo, anlotinib increased the risk (OR =3.67; 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), while anlotinib plus ICIs (OR =2.45; 95% CI: 0.51, 11.6) and ICIs (OR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.38) did not increase the risk.

Conclusions

Anlotinib combined with ICIs demonstrates improved efficacy over monotherapy for NSCLC treatment, without increased adverse events.

Response to immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in metastatic RET-mutated lung cancer from real-world retrospective data

BACKGROUND

The impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) based treatments on non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) with RET fusions remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We screened patients with RET fusions at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University and included those who were treated with ICIs based regimens for further analysis. We evaluated clinical indicators including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients with RET fusions were included in the study. Of these, 129 patients had their programmed death-ligand 1 (PDL1) expression levels tested, with 22 patients (17.8%) having a PDL1 level greater than or equal to 50%. Additionally, tumor mutational burden (TMB) status was evaluated in 35 patients, with the majority (30/35, 85.8%) having a TMB of less than 10 mutations per megabase. Out of the 38 patients treated with ICI based regimens, the median PFS was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-7.6 months) and the median OS was 19 months (95% CI: 9.7-28.3 months) at the time of data analysis. Stratification based on treatment lines did not show any significant differences in OS (18 vs. 19 months, p = 0.63) and PFS (6 vs. 5 months, p = 0.86). The ORR for patients treated with ICIs was 26.3%. Furthermore, no significant differences were found for PFS (p = 0.27) and OS (p = 0.75) between patients with positive and negative PDL1 expression. Additionally, there was no significant difference in PD-L1 levels (p = 0.10) between patients who achieved objective response and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RET fusion positive NSCLCs may not benefit from ICI based regimens and therefore should not be treated with ICIs in clinical practice.