Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study

BACKGROUND

Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy) with and without lazertinib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with refractory epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in phase I studies. These combinations were evaluated in a global phase III trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.

RESULTS

All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year update

BACKGROUND

To further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

With a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆

BACKGROUND

Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.

Genome-wide profiling of non-smoking-related lung cancer cells reveals common RB1 rearrangements associated with histopathologic transformation in EGFR-mutant tumors

BACKGROUND

The etiology and the molecular basis of lung adenocarcinomas (LuADs) in nonsmokers are currently unknown. Furthermore, the scarcity of available primary cultures continues to hamper our biological understanding of non-smoking-related lung adenocarcinomas (NSK-LuADs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We established patient-derived cancer cell (PDC) cultures from metastatic NSK-LuADs, including two pairs of matched EGFR-mutant PDCs before and after resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and then performed whole-exome and RNA sequencing to delineate their genomic architecture. For validation, we analyzed independent cohorts of primary LuADs.

RESULTS

In addition to known non-smoker-associated alterations (e.g. RET, ALK, EGFR, and ERBB2), we discovered novel fusions and recurrently mutated genes, including ATF7IP, a regulator of gene expression, that was inactivated in 5% of primary LuAD cases. We also found germline mutations at dominant familiar-cancer genes, highlighting the importance of genetic predisposition in the origin of a subset of NSK-LuADs. Furthermore, there was an over-representation of inactivating alterations at RB1, mostly through complex intragenic rearrangements, in treatment-naive EGFR-mutant LuADs. Three EGFR-mutant and one EGFR-wild-type tumors acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, respectively, and histology on re-biopsies revealed the development of small-cell lung cancer/squamous cell carcinoma (SCLC/LuSCC) transformation. These features were consistent with RB1 inactivation and acquired EGFR-T790M mutation or FGFR3-TACC3 fusion in EGFR-mutant tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

We found recurrent alterations in LuADs that deserve further exploration. Our work also demonstrates that a subset of NSK-LuADs arises within cancer-predisposition syndromes. The preferential occurrence of RB1 inactivation, via complex rearrangements, found in EGFR-mutant tumors appears to favor SCLC/LuSCC transformation under growth-inhibition pressures. Thus RB1 inactivation may predict the risk of LuAD transformation to a more aggressive type of lung cancer, and may need to be considered as a part of the clinical management of NSK-LuADs patients.

Clinical utility of plasma-based digital next-generation sequencing in patients with advance-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tumor samples for tissue genotyping

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of tumor biopsies from patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas yield insufficient tissue for successful molecular subtyping. We have analyzed the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with inadequate tumor samples for tissue genotyping.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted the study in a multi-institutional prospective cohort of clinically unselected patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas with insufficient tissue for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genotyping across 12 Spanish institutions (n = 93). ctDNA NGS was carried out by Guardant Health (Guardant360, Redwood City, CA), using a hybrid-capture-based 73-gene panel. Variants were deemed actionable if they were part of the OncoKB precision oncology knowledge database and classified in four levels of actionability based on their clinical or preclinical evidence for drug response.

RESULTS

Eighty-three out of 93 patients (89%) had detectable levels of ctDNA. Potentially actionable level 1-4 genomic alterations were detected in 53 cases (57%), of which 13 (14%) had level 1-2A alterations (Food and Drug Administration-approved and standard-care biomarkers according to lung cancer guidelines). Frequencies of each genomic alteration in ctDNA were consistent with those observed in unselected pulmonary adenocarcinomas. The majority of the patients (62%), particularly those with actionable alterations (87%), had more than one pathogenic variant in ctDNA. The median turnaround time to genomic results was 13 days. Twelve patients (13%) received genotype-matched therapies based on ctDNA results, deriving the expected clinical benefit. Patients with co-occurring pathogenic alterations had a significantly shorter median overall survival as compared with patients without co-occurring pathogenic alteration (multivariate hazard ratio = 5.35, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Digital NGS of ctDNA in lung cancers with insufficient tumor samples for tissue sequencing detects actionable variants that frequently co-occur with other potentially clinically relevant genomic alterations, allowing timely initiation of genotype-matched therapies.

Correction to: Predictive and prognostic clinical and pathological factors of nivolumab efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Clinical and Translational Oncology.