FOXO1 enhances CAR T cell stemness, metabolic fitness and efficacy

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has transformed the treatment of haematological malignancies such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, B cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma1-4, but the efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid tumours has been limited5. This is owing to a number of factors, including the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment that gives rise to poorly persisting and metabolically dysfunctional T cells. Analysis of anti-CD19 CAR T cells used clinically has shown that positive treatment outcomes are associated with a more 'stem-like' phenotype and increased mitochondrial mass6-8. We therefore sought to identify transcription factors that could enhance CAR T cell fitness and efficacy against solid tumours. Here we show that overexpression of FOXO1 promotes a stem-like phenotype in CAR T cells derived from either healthy human donors or patients, which correlates with improved mitochondrial fitness, persistence and therapeutic efficacy in vivo. This work thus reveals an engineering approach to genetically enforce a favourable metabolic phenotype that has high translational potential to improve the efficacy of CAR T cells against solid tumours.

A pragmatic guide for management of adverse events associated with lorlatinib

Lorlatinib is a brain-penetrant, third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In clinical trials, lorlatinib has shown durable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients and in those who have experienced progression while receiving first- and/or second-generation ALK TKIs. Lorlatinib has a distinct safety profile from other ALK TKIs, including hyperlipidemia and central nervous system effects. Clinical trial data showed that most adverse events (AEs) can be managed effectively or reversed with dose modifications (such as dose interruptions or reductions) or with concomitant medications without compromising clinical efficacy or quality of life for patients. A pragmatic approach to managing AEs related to lorlatinib is required. We present patient-focused recommendations for the evaluation and management of select AEs associated with lorlatinib developed by clinicians and nurses with extensive lorlatinib expertise in routine clinical practice. The recommendations follow the general framework of "prepare, monitor, manage, reassess" to streamline AE management and assist in practical, actionable, and personalized patient care.

Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).

A Retrospective Review and Comprehensive Tumour Profiling of Advanced Non-Melanomatous Cutaneous Spindle Cell Neoplasms Treated with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors

Non-melanomatous cutaneous spindle cell neoplasms are a rare group of malignancies that present a diagnostic challenge, and for which there is a lack of consensus on how to best manage patients with advanced disease and only limited reports of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) responses. In this study, we performed a single-center retrospective review of treatment outcomes for all advanced non-melanomatous cutaneous spindle cell neoplasms treated with ICIs. Blinded histopathology reviews occurred to confirm each diagnosis. Comprehensive tumour profiling included whole exome sequencing for tumour mutational burden (TMB) and ultraviolet(UV) signatures, and immunohistochemistry for immune-cell infiltration (CD4/CD3/CD8/CD103/CD20) and immune-checkpoint expression (PD-L1/LAG3/TIGIT). Seven patients were identified. The objective response rate was 86% (6/7) with five complete responses (CR). Responses were durable with two patients in CR > 30 months after ICI commencement. All patients had high TMB and UV signatures. One patient had PD-L1 100% (combined positive score) with abundant immune-cell infiltration and LAG3 expression. In advanced non-melanomatous cutaneous spindle cell neoplasms, excellent responses to ICIs with durable disease control were observed. ICIs are worthy of further exploration in these patients. UV signatures and high TMB could be used to help select patients for treatment.

ASPiRATION: Australian observational cohort study of comprehensive genomic profiling in metastatic lung cancer tissue

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

Characterising B cell expression and prognostic significance in human papillomavirus positive oropharyngeal cancer

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of human papillomavirus positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+OPC) is increasing, and new biomarkers are required to better define prognostic groups and guide treatment. Infiltrating T cells have been well studied in head and neck cancer, however the presence and role of B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) in the tumor microenvironment has not, even though the interplay between T and B cells is increasingly being recognised.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using CD20 immunohistochemistry (IHC) to identify B cells and TLS in a cohort of 159 HPV + OPC patients, we semi-quantitatively scored abundance and location (intra-tumoral or stromal) and correlated findings with patient survival.

RESULTS

32% (51/157) of patients had high intra-tumoral (IT) abundance of CD20+ B cells (≥5%) and this was prognostic for improved overall survival (OS) with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.2 (95 % CI 0.0-0.7, p = 0.014). We validated our results in an independent cohort comprising 171 HPV + OPC where 14% (23/171) were IT CD20+ high, again showing improved survival with an adjusted HR for OS of 0.2 (95 % CI 0.0-1.4, p = 0.003). Neither stromal abundance nor the presence of TLS were prognostic in either cohort. B cells were subtyped by multispectral IHC, identifying CD20+CD27+ cells, consistent with memory B cells, as the predominant subtype. Combined with validated biomarker CD103, a marker of tissue-resident memory T cells, IT CD20+ B cells abundance was able to prognostically stratify patients further.

CONCLUSIONS

CD20+ B cell abundance has the potential to be used as a biomarker to identify good and poor prognosis HPV + OPC patients.

A Phase II trial of alternating osimertinib and gefitinib therapy in advanced EGFR-T790M positive non-small cell lung cancer: OSCILLATE

In this phase II, single arm trial (ACTRN12617000720314), we investigate if alternating osimertinib and gefitinib would delay the development of resistance to osimertinib in advanced, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation (n = 47) by modulating selective pressure on resistant clones. The primary endpoint is progression free-survival (PFS) rate at 12 months, and secondary endpoints include: feasibility of alternating therapy, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. The 12-month PFS rate is 38% (95% CI 27.5-55), not meeting the pre-specified primary endpoint. Serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis reveals decrease and clearance of the original activating EGFR and EGFR-T790M mutations which are prognostic of clinical outcomes. In 73% of participants, loss of T790M ctDNA is observed at progression and no participants have evidence of the EGFR C797S resistance mutation following the alternating regimen. These findings highlight the challenges of treatment strategies designed to modulate clonal evolution and the clinical importance of resistance mechanisms beyond suppression of selected genetic mutations in driving therapeutic escape to highly potent targeted therapies.

Lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer: real-world experience of a multicentre national early access programme

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lurbinectedin is a novel oncogenic transcription inhibitor active in several cancers, including small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to describe the first Australian experience of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of lurbinectedin for the treatment of SCLC after progression on platinum-containing therapy.

METHODS

Multicentre real-world study of individuals with SCLC initiating lurbinectedin monotherapy (3.2 mg/m2 three-weekly) on an early access programme between May 2020 and December 2021. Key outcomes were clinical utilisation, efficacy and tolerability. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome data were collected within the AUstralian Registry and biObank of thoRacic cAncers (AURORA).

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 46 individuals across seven sites. Lurbinectedin was given as second- (83%, 38/46) or subsequent- (17%, 8/46) line therapy, mostly with prior chemoimmunotherapy (87%, 40/46). We report dose modifications (17%, 8/46), interruptions/delays (24%, 11/46), high-grade toxicities (28%, 13/46) and hospitalisations (54%, 25/46) during active treatment. The overall response rate was 33% and the disease control rate was 50%. Six-month OS was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0-57.1). Twelve-month OS was 15% (95% CI: 6.5-26.8). From lurbinectedin first dose, the median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.9) and OS was 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-7.2). From SCLC diagnosis, the median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 11.0-17.2). Individuals with a longer chemotherapy-free interval prior to lurbinectedin had longer PFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

This real-world national experience of lurbinectedin post-platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapy for individuals with SCLC was similar to that reported in clinical trials.

CXCR2 antagonist navarixin in combination with pembrolizumab in select advanced solid tumors: a phase 2 randomized trial

C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) has a role in tumor progression, lineage plasticity, and reduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Preclinical evidence suggests potential benefit of CXCR2 inhibition in multiple solid tumors. In this phase 2 study (NCT03473925), adults with previously treated advanced or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer (MSS CRC), or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized 1:1 to the CXCR2 antagonist navarixin 30 or 100 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and safety. Of 105 patients (CRPC, n=40; MSS CRC, n=40; NSCLC, n=25), 3 had a partial response (2 CRPC, 1 MSS CRC) for ORRs of 5%, 2.5%, and 0%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 1.8-2.4 months without evidence of a dose-response relationship, and the study was closed at a prespecified interim analysis for lack of efficacy. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2/48 patients (4%) receiving navarixin 30 mg and 3/48 (6%) receiving navarixin 100 mg; events included grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 transaminase elevation, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 70/105 patients (67%) and led to treatment discontinuation in 7/105 (7%). Maximal reductions from baseline in absolute neutrophil count were 44.5%-48.2% (cycle 1) and 37.5%-44.2% (cycle 2) and occurred within 6-12 hours postdose in both groups. Navarixin plus pembrolizumab did not demonstrate sufficient efficacy in this study. Safety and tolerability of the combination were manageable. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03473925).

Evaluation of the Effect of Lorlatinib on CYP2B6, CYP2C9, UGT, and P-Glycoprotein Substrates in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Lorlatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. This study assessed the effect of steady-state lorlatinib on the metabolic enzymes cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2B6, CYP2C9, and uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) and the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporter.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients received a single oral dose of a probe drug on Day - 2 to determine the pharmacokinetics of the probe drug alone. Starting on Day 1, patients received 100 mg oral lorlatinib daily. On Day 15, a single oral dose of the probe drug was administered concurrently with lorlatinib. Pharmacokinetic parameters for these probe substrates were assessed.

RESULTS

Plasma exposures of all probe substrates were reduced by lorlatinib compared with the probe alone. The greatest reduction in area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞) and maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (Cmax) (67% and 63% decrease, respectively) was observed with the P-gp probe substrate fexofenadine. Lorlatinib coadministration also decreased the AUC∞ and Cmax of bupropion (CYP2B6 probe substrate) by 25% and 27%, tolbutamide (CYP2C9 probe substrate) by 43% and 15%, and acetaminophen (UGT probe substrate) by 45% and 28%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Lorlatinib is a net moderate inducer of P-gp and a weak inducer of CYP2B6, CYP2C9, and UGT after steady state is achieved with daily dosing. Medications that are P-gp substrates with a narrow therapeutic window should be avoided in patients taking lorlatinib; no dose modifications are needed with substrates of CYP2B6, CYP2C9, or UGT.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT01970865.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R.

METHODS

In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2.

RESULTS

On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Canakinumab Versus Placebo in Combination With First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-1 Trial

PURPOSE

The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment has prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but prognosis remains poor, with new treatment options needed. Canakinumab, a human, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-1β antibody, has potential to enhance the activity of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (CT) by inhibiting protumor inflammation.

METHODS

CANOPY-1 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing canakinumab (200 mg subcutaneously once every 3 weeks) versus placebo, both combined with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) and platinum-based doublet CT, as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 643 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n = 320) or placebo (n = 323). With a median study follow-up of 6.5 months, the median PFS was 6.8 months with canakinumab versus 6.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.09; P = .102). With a median study follow-up of 21.2 months, the median OS was 20.8 months with canakinumab versus 20.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10; P = .123). No unexpected safety signals were observed for canakinumab combination. Infection rates were comparable between treatment and control arms. A higher frequency of neutropenia and ALT increase (grade ≤2) were reported in the treatment arm. Higher baseline C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Patients treated with canakinumab had clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of lung cancer symptoms, including chest pain and coughing per LC13 and dyspnea per LC13 and C30.

CONCLUSION

The addition of canakinumab to first-line pembrolizumab and CT did not prolong PFS or OS in patients with NSCLC.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

BACKGROUND

Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.

METHOD

Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.

RESULTS

The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.

POLICY SUMMARY

Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Early Circulating Tumor DNA Dynamics and Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive, Advanced, ALK-Positive NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been used as a biomarker for prognostication and response to treatment. Here, we evaluate ctDNA as a potential biomarker for response to lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608).

METHODS

Molecular responses were calculated using mean variant allele frequency (VAF), longitudinal mean change in VAF (dVAF), and ratio to baseline. Efficacy assessments (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate) were paired with individual patient ctDNA and analyzed for association.

RESULTS

Compared with baseline, mean VAF at week 4 was decreased in both treatment arms. Considering all detected somatic variants, a reduction in dVAF (≤0) was associated with a longer PFS in the lorlatinib arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for a dVAF less than or equal to 0 versus more than 0 was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-1.12) in the lorlatinib arm. A similar association was not observed for crizotinib (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49-2.03). Comparing molecular responders with nonresponders, patients treated with lorlatinib who had a molecular response had longer PFS (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.85); patients treated with crizotinib who had a molecular response had similar PFS as those without a molecular response (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.67-3.30).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with treatment-naive, advanced, ALK-positive NSCLC, early ctDNA dynamics predicted better outcome with lorlatinib but not with crizotinib. These results suggest that ctDNA may be used to monitor and potentially predict efficacy of lorlatinib treatment.

Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naive Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC in Relation to EML4::ALK Variant Type and ALK With or Without TP53 Mutations

INTRODUCTION

Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved outcomes compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here, we investigated response correlates using plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue profiling.

METHODS

ALK fusions and ALK with or without TP53 mutations were assessed by next-generation sequencing. End points included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review on the basis of EML4::ALK variants and ALK with or without TP53 or other mutation status.

RESULTS

ALK fusions were detected in the ctDNA of 62 patients in the lorlatinib arm and 64 patients in the crizotinib arm. ORRs were numerically higher with lorlatinib versus crizotinib for EML4::ALK variant 1 (v1; 80.0% versus 50.0%) and variant 2 (v2; 85.7% versus 50.0%) but were similar between the arms for variant 3 (v3; 72.2% versus 73.9%). Median PFS in the lorlatinib arm was not reached for EML4::ALK v1 and v2 and was 33.3 months for v3; in the crizotinib arm, median PFS was 7.4 months, not reached, and 5.5 months, respectively. ORRs and PFS were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib regardless of TP53 mutation status and in patients harboring preexisting bypass pathway resistance alterations. In the lorlatinib arm, PFS was lower in patients who had a co-occurring TP53 mutation. Results from ctDNA analysis were similar to those observed with tumor tissue samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC derived greater clinical benefits, with higher ORRs and potentially longer PFS, when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib, independent of EML4::ALK variant or ALK mutations, TP53 mutations, or bypass resistance alterations.

Risk-Directed Ambulatory Thromboprophylaxis in Lung and Gastrointestinal Cancers: The TARGET-TP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Thromboprophylaxis for individuals receiving systemic anticancer therapies has proven to be effective. Potential to maximize benefits relies on improved risk-directed strategies, but existing risk models underperform in cohorts with lung and gastrointestinal cancers.

Objective

To assess clinical benefits and safety of biomarker-driven thromboprophylaxis and to externally validate a biomarker thrombosis risk assessment model for individuals with lung and gastrointestinal cancers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (Targeted Thromboprophylaxis in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapies [TARGET-TP]) conducted from June 2018 to July 2021 (with 6-month primary follow-up) included adults aged 18 years or older commencing systemic anticancer therapies for lung or gastrointestinal cancers at 1 metropolitan and 4 regional hospitals in Australia. Thromboembolism risk assessment based on fibrinogen and d-dimer levels stratified individuals into low-risk (observation) and high-risk (randomized) cohorts.

Interventions

High-risk patients were randomized 1:1 to receive enoxaparin, 40 mg, subcutaneously daily for 90 days (extending up to 180 days according to ongoing risk) or no thromboprophylaxis (control).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was objectively confirmed thromboembolism at 180 days. Key secondary outcomes included bleeding, survival, and risk model validation.

Results

Of 782 eligible adults, 328 (42%) were enrolled in the trial (median age, 65 years [range, 30-88 years]; 176 male [54%]). Of these participants, 201 (61%) had gastrointestinal cancer, 127 (39%) had lung cancer, and 132 (40%) had metastatic disease; 200 (61%) were high risk (100 in each group), and 128 (39%) were low risk. In the high-risk cohort, thromboembolism occurred in 8 individuals randomized to enoxaparin (8%) and 23 control individuals (23%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = .005; number needed to treat, 6.7). Thromboembolism occurred in 10 low-risk individuals (8%) (high-risk control vs low risk: HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.58-6.99; P = .002). Risk model sensitivity was 70%, and specificity was 61%. The rate of major bleeding was low, occurring in 1 participant randomized to enoxaparin (1%), 2 in the high-risk control group (2%), and 3 in the low-risk group (2%) (P = .88). Six-month mortality was 13% in the enoxaparin group vs 26% in the high-risk control group (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93; P = .03) and 7% in the low-risk group (vs high-risk control: HR, 4.71; 95% CI, 2.13-10.42; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of individuals with lung and gastrointestinal cancers who were stratified by risk score according to thrombosis risk, risk-directed thromboprophylaxis reduced thromboembolism with a desirable number needed to treat, without safety concerns, and with reduced mortality. Individuals at low risk avoided unnecessary intervention. The findings suggest that biomarker-driven, risk-directed primary thromboprophylaxis is an appropriate approach in this population.

Trial Registration

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000811202.

Comprehensive profiling identifies tumour and immune microenvironmental differences in clinical subsets of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) are the second most diagnosed skin cancer worldwide; however, little is known about the pathobiological factors that contribute to the diverse clinical outcomes seen.

OBJECTIVES

To profile cSCCs comprehensively and identify the pathological processes that contribute to the disparities seen in their clinical behaviour.

METHODS

We characterized the genomic, transcriptomic and immunohistochemical profiles of 211 cSCC tumours, including 37 cSCCs from immunocompromised patients.

RESULTS

cSCCs from immunocompromised patients were characterized by a lack of B cells in the peritumoral stroma compared with immunocompetent patients. Further, an abundance of a memory B-cell-like population in the peritumoral stroma was associated with a better prognosis in all patients (immunocompetent and immunocompromised), as well as only immunocompetent patients. No differences in genetic -variants, tumour mutational burden or mutational signatures were observed between cSCCs from immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. Thus, differences in survival between cSCCs from immunocompromised patients and immunocompetent patients are not likely to be driven by tumour genomic factors, but may be associated with differential host immune response. cSCC not from a primary head and neck site had lower tumour mutational burden and exhibited upregulation of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition programme compared with head and neck cSCC. Both factors were implicated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibition, and the latter with poorer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified tumour and host immune factors that contribute to the disparate clinical behaviour of cSCC, with broad translational application, including prognostication, treatment prediction to current therapies and the identification of novel anticancer therapy approaches in cSCC.

Immune-related acute kidney injury in Australian non-small cell lung cancer patients: Real-world results

BACKGROUND

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has altered therapeutic paradigms in NSCLC. However, they may cause immune-related toxicities, including acute kidney injury (irAKI), especially when combined with nephrotoxic agents. We investigated the incidence, management and outcomes of AKI in Australian NSCLC patients.

METHODS

Medical records from a cancer centre registry were reviewed. AKI was defined and graded on absolute creatinine rise, or rise above baseline. Fishers exact test compared proportions. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival, and multiple logistic regression tested for risk factors.

RESULTS

Of 449 patients who underwent immunotherapy from 2013 to 2021, the median age was 65 years and 61% were male. Metastatic disease was present in 68% at diagnosis, the remainder had stage Ia-III disease; 70% had adenocarcinoma; and 17% had EGFR mutations. AKI was identified in 65 patients (14.5%) of which 19 were irAKI (4.2%). Within irAKI patients, eleven (58%) had other immune-related adverse events. Median time to irAKI onset was 4 months (IQR 4-6). Seventeen (89%) patients had AKI stage 1 or 2; two had stage 3. Eleven patients developed chronic kidney disease; none required renal replacement therapy. Kidney biopsies demonstrated acute interstitial nephritis (n = 3), acute tubular necrosis (n = 1) and anti-phospholipase A2 receptor negative membranous glomerulonephritis (n = 1). Five patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy; two had recurrent irAKI. The median overall survival for those with irAKI was not reached versus 12 months with no irAKI (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.20-0.60, p = 0.01). Risk factors for irAKI included having an additional, non-renal irAE (OR 6.21, 95 %CI 2.35-17.26, p ≤ 0.01); immunotherapy combined with other cancer therapies (OR 5.62, 95 %CI 2.08-16.20, p ≤ 0.01); and ECOG performance status > 1 (OR 4.39 (95 %CI 1.11-14.90, p = 0.02) CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of irAKI was similar to the published literature. Renal recovery was poor, however survival was not compromised. Improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for irAKI would benefit this population.

Plain language summary of the updated results from the CROWN study comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This summary shows the updated results of an ongoing research study called CROWN that was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in December 2022. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two study medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib. The study included people with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not been treated previously. All people in the study had cancer cells with changes (known as alterations) in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK. This ALK gene is involved in cancer growth. In this updated study, researchers looked at the continued benefit in people who took lorlatinib compared with people who took crizotinib after 3 years.

WHAT DID THIS STUDY FIND?

After 3 years of being observed, people who took lorlatinib were more likely to be alive without their cancer getting worse than people who took crizotinib. At 3 years, 64% of people who took lorlatinib were alive without their cancer getting worse compared with 19% of people who took crizotinib. The cancer was less likely to have spread within or to the brain in people who took lorlatinib than in people who took crizotinib. After 3 years of being observed, 61% of people were still taking lorlatinib and 8% of people were still taking crizotinib. People who took lorlatinib had more severe side effects than people who took crizotinib. However, these side effects were manageable. The most common side effects with lorlatinib were high levels of cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. Life-threatening side effects were seen in 13% of people who took lorlatinib and 8% in crizotinib. Two people who took lorlatinib died because of side effects from lorlatinib.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?

The updated results from the CROWN study showed that a larger percentage of people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment after being observed for 3 years compared with those who took crizotinib. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03052608 (phase 3 CROWN study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Antibody-Drug Conjugates for Lung Cancer: Payloads and Progress

Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) are a novel class of therapeutic that structurally comprise an antibody directed at a tumor epitope connected via a linker to a cytotoxic payload that have shown significant antitumor activity across a range of malignancies including lung cancer. In this article we review the pharmacology of ADCs, describe results of trials with ADCs directed at targets in lung cancer including Trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2(TROP2), HER3, MET, Carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecular 5(CECAM-5) and HER2. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (also known as DS-8201a or T-DXd) an ADC directed at HER2 recently became the first ADC to receive FDA approval in lung cancer, on the basis of its activity in tumors with HER2 mutations, demonstrated in the Destiny-Lung01 and Lung02 trials.

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.

Lung cancer

Lung cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide with an estimated 2 million new cases and 1·76 million deaths per year. Substantial improvements in our understanding of disease biology, application of predictive biomarkers, and refinements in treatment have led to remarkable progress in the past two decades and transformed outcomes for many patients. This seminar provides an overview of advances in the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer, with a particular focus on targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Abstract LB043: Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naïve Patients (pts) With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Relation to EML4-ALK Variant Type and ALK Mutations

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a 3rd 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 resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs crizotinib.1 To identify molecular correlates of response, we performed molecular profiling of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor tissue.

METHODS: Plasma and tumor tissue samples were available from 130 and 118 pts in the lorlatinib arm, and from 125 and 104 pts in the crizotinib arm, respectively. Plasma DNA was analyzed for ALK fusions and mutations by next-generation sequencing (NGS; Guardant360, Guardant Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA); tumor tissue DNA was analyzed with an ALK-mutation focused NGS panel (MolecularMD, Portland, OR, USA). Objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and PFS were evaluated by blinded independent central review according to EML4-ALK variant type and ALK resistance mutation status.

RESULTS: At screening, 19 ALK missense mutations and 1 deletion were detected in plasma of 11 pts (5 and 6 in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively). Most pts harbored 1 mutation, but 3 pts harbored ≥3 mutations. ALK fusions were detected in plasma of 48% of pts. EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3 were detected in 14.6%, 5.4%, and 13.8% and in 20.0%, 1.6%, and 16.8% of pts, in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively. Variants 4, 5, 7, and 8 were detected in 11.5% and 7.2% of pts, and less frequent fusion partners in 1.5% and 3.2% of pts, respectively. ORRs were generally higher in the lorlatinib arm vs the crizotinib arm, regardless of variant subtypes and/or mutational status, with no striking differences between EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3 (range, 72% to 86% for lorlatinib and 50% to 76% for crizotinib). Median DOR and PFS were not reached for variants 1 and 3 in the lorlatinib arm, and ranged from 5.7 to 6.5 months, and from 7.4 to 7.6 months in the crizotinib arm, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Pts with untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC had higher ORRs and potentially longer DOR and PFS across predefined biomarker subgroups when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib in a phase 3 CROWN study. Based on pretreatment cfDNA analysis, lorlatinib led to similar clinical benefit regardless of the type of EML4-ALK variant or presence of ALK kinase mutations.

REFERENCE: 1. Shaw AT, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2018-2029.

Citation Format: Alessandra Bearz, Jean-François Martini, Jacek Jassem, Sang-We Kim, Gee-Chen Chang, Alice Shaw, Deborah Shepard, Elisa Dall'O', Anna Polli, Holger Thurm, Gerard Zalcman, Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo, Konstantin Penkov, Hidetoshi Hayashi, Benjamin J. Solomon. Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naïve Patients (pts) With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Relation to EML4-ALK Variant Type and ALK Mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB043.

Immunotherapy in oncogene addicted non-small cell lung cancer

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) has led to notable changes in treatment strategies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and now forms a part of standard of care treatment in patients with advanced disease. However, most patients do not respond to ICI monotherapy, which may be explained by significant variations in efficacy according to different immune and molecular profiles in tumours. Improved response rates have been observed in smokers and are associated with tumors that have high mutation loads, with a higher tendency to form neoantigens. This premise itself defies the eventual significance of ICIs for oncogene-driven NSCLC, which in general are more common in never smokers and potentially have reduced capacity for neoantigen formation. Furthermore, pivotal trials investigating ICIs in advanced NSCLC have usually excluded patients with oncogenic drivers, hence the outcome of these agents in this population is poorly characterized. In this article, we aim to review the most current evidence, encompassing clinical and preclinical data focused on a wide range of oncogene-addicted NSCLCs.