Hitting the Right Spot: Advances in the Treatment of NSCLC With Uncommon EGFR Mutations

Molecular heterogeneity and treatment outcome of EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: insights from a large-scale real-world study

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aimed to investigate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR20ins in China. EGFR20ins mutations are associated with poor responses to EGFR-TKIs, and limited real-world data exist regarding the efficacy of various treatment modalities.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center study, treatment outcomes, including PFS and ORR, were evaluated for different treatment regimens based on imaging assessments. The impact of mutation heterogeneity on treatment efficacy was also explored.

RESULTS

Data from 302 patients diagnosed with NSCLC with EGFR20ins were analyzed. EGFR-TKI monotherapy demonstrated suboptimal PFS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting (3.00 m vs. 6.83 m, HR = 3.674, 95%CI = 2.48-5.44, p < 0.001). Platinum plus pemetrexed plus bevacizumab combination therapy showed improved PFS and ORR compared to platinum plus pemetrexed (7.50m vs. 5.43 m, HR = 0.593, 95%CI = 0.383-0.918, p = 0.019). In later-line treatments, monotherapy with EGFR-TKIs or ICIs exhibited suboptimal efficacy. The specific EGFR20ins subtype, A763_Y764insFQEA, showed favorable responses to EGFR-TKIs in real-world settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale real-world study provides valuable insights into the treatment patterns and outcomes of NSCLC patients with EGFR20ins mutations in China. These findings contribute to the understanding of EGFR20ins treatment and provide real-world benchmark for future clinical trials and drug development.

Clinical Outcomes of Afatinib Versus Osimertinib in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the effectiveness of afatinib compared to that of osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbored uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

METHODS

A PubMed database-based literature review was conducted to retrieve related studies. Patients harboring EGFR mutations besides the deletion in exon 19 (19del) and point mutation of L858R were included in this analysis. The primary outcome events were the objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:1 was used between afatinib and osimertinib groups to control the confounding factors. Uncommon EGFR mutations were categorized into 4 groups: insertion in exon 20 (ex20ins), non-ex20ins single uncommon EGFR mutations, compound EGFR mutations that with 19del or L858R, and compound EGFR mutations without 19del or L858R.

RESULTS

After PSM, 71 patients in either the afatinib or osimertinib group were matched. The afatinib group had an ORR of 60.6%, slightly higher than the osimertinib group's (50.3%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .610). However, the afatinib group showed a significantly superior PFS benefit than the osimertinib group (11.0 vs. 7.0 months, P = .044). In addition, patients harboring non-ex20ins single uncommon EGFR mutations yield the best ORR and PFS, following treatment of either afatinib (ORR: 76.7%, mPFS: 14.1 months) or osimertinib (ORR: 68.8%, mPFS: 15.1 months). Moreover, there was no significant difference in terms of ORR or PFS between the cohort of patients treated with afatinib or osimertinib, regardless of whether or not the patients had brain metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Both afatinib and osimertinib displayed favorable clinical activities toward uncommon EGFR mutations. Afatinib showed a more profound and durable PFS benefit than osimertinib, although no efficacy advantage was observed.

Inconsistent clinical outcomes following afatinib treatment in NSCLC patients harboring uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor mutation

Background

Uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations consist of a heterogeneous population of molecular alterations, and the available clinical data on the outcomes of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring uncommon EGFR mutations following afatinib treatment are limited. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to investigate the clinicopathological features of patients with uncommon EGFR mutations (um-EGFRms) along with their treatment response and survival outcomes following afatinib treatment.

Methods

We performed a literature search in the NCBI PubMed database to identify relevant articles and conducted this pooled analysis based on 70 studies. The relationships between patient clinical characteristics, EGFR mutation type and the response to afatinib treatment were analyzed using univariate chi-square analysis, and survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Data from a total of 99 patients were included in the pooled analysis. The objective response rate (ORR) to treatment with afatinib was53.5%, with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 9.0 months. For patients administered first-line afatinib treatment, the ORR and median PFS were 73.5% and 15.6 months, respectively, which were both superior to those of patients treated with second- or later-line treatments (ORR:37.0%, p < 0.001; mPFS: 6.0months, p = 0.001). Moreover, patients with a single um-EGFRm were more likely to have a favorable response and prognosis benefit after treatment with afatinib than patients with multiple one (ORR: 63.3% vs 38.5%, p=0.017; mPFS: 15.6 months vs 6.0 months,p=0.010). Moreover, single um-EGFRm were independent predictive factors for better treatment response and superior PFS. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients harboring major um-EGFRms (i.e., L861Q, G719X, and S768I) exhibited the best treatment responses and prognoses (ORR: 74.1%, mPFS: 15.6 months), by contrast, patients harboring multiple um-EGFRms comprising 19del/L858R had the worst treatment responses and prognoses (ORR: 23.5%, mPFS: 5.6months).

Conclusions

Patients with um-EGFRms exhibit favorable but inconsistent responses and survival outcomes following afatinib treatment, which closely related to the mutation pattern and cooccurring partner mutant genes. Administering afatinib for the treatment of patients with um-EGFRm might be considered an effective treatment option in some circumstances, but this recommendation requires further clinical studies for verification.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC patients with EGFR-TKI resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly in Asian populations. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are a first-line treatment in patients with mutant EGFR, but their use is often accompanied by drug resistance, which leads to disease progression. Chemotherapy and immunotherapy are the main treatment options after progression. The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their combination therapy in patients with EGFR-TKI resistant is not clear. It is thus necessary to evaluate the efficacy of ICIs and ICI-based combination therapies in patients with EGFR-TKI-resistant NSCLC.

Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICI therapy alone or in combination versus other therapies using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from database inception to 10 March 2022. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR), and 95% CI were used as effect indicators for objective response rate (ORR) and safety data.

Results: Seven eligible RCTs were included in the present meta-analysis. The results showed that neither ICIs nor combination therapy prolonged median OS in EGFR-TKI resistant NSCLC patients (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84–1.29, p = 0.73). However, compared with the control group, the patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy had better PFS (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45–0.86, p = 0.004) and ORR (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.28–2.66, p = 0.001).

Conclusion: ICI monotherapy did not improve the OS or PFS of NSCLC patients previously treated with EGFR-TKIs, whereas patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy had better PFS compared with those receiving conventional chemotherapy, indicating that this therapy could be offered to patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC after progression following TKI treatment. There was no significant difference in all-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) between the combination therapy group and the control group. However, a higher incidence of discontinuation due to TRAEs was observed; this requires attention in future studies. The results of this meta-analysis provide a reference for clinical practice and future trial design.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282207