Search

Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used in first line for the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).The identification of related histomolecular resistance mechanisms to first-line osimertinib is a critical step to define the optimal treatment strategy beyond progression.All consecutive patients treated in the first line with osimertinib for advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC at 10 hospitals in the Greater Paris area between April 2015 and January 2021 were included. Histomolecular data from plasma and tissue samples taken at progression under osimertinib were collected, and all samples were analyzed using DNA next-generation sequencing. Data on objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were also collected.Overall, 104 patients were included. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (n = 102, 98%) with an exon 19 EGFR deletion (n = 54, 52%). Forty-two patients (50%) had central nervous system (CNS) metastasis at the time of osimertinib initiation. ORR was 76%, median PFS and OS were 12.6 months and 52 months, respectively, and TTD was 33 months. At the time of analysis, 44 patients (42%) had tumor progression, and among these patients, 27 (61%) contributive samples were available. The most frequent molecular alterations at progression were mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) amplification (15%; n = 4) and EGFR C797S mutation (11%; n = 3). Histological transformation was found in one patient (4%). RNA next-generation sequencing was performed in eight patients and showed a CCDC6-RET fusion in one patient (12%).We confirmed the efficacy of osimertinib in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. At progression, the most frequent histomolecular alterations were MET amplification and EGFR C797S mutation.

Purpose: Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown. Patients and Methods: SAFIR02-Lung/IFCT 1301 was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6–2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6–4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7–1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3–4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0–5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11–0.75) as compared with PD-L1 Conclusions: Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients.

Supplementary Figure 2. Forest plot with subgroup analysis for PFS in substudy 1.

Supplementary Table S1. Representativeness of Study Participants

Purpose:Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown.Patients and Methods:SAFIR02-Lung/IFCT 1301 was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).Results:Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6–2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6–4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7–1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3–4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0–5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11–0.75) as compared with PD-L1 n = 31; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31–1.60; Pinteraction = 0.036).Conclusions:Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients.

Supplementary Figure legends 1-5

Supplementary materials - substudy 1 statistical report

Study protocol

Despite high expression of PD-L1, around half of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will not experience tumor response with pembrolizumab. There is an need for a better understanding of the resistance mechanisms in this setting.This bi-centric retrospective study included all consecutive patients with PDL1 ≥ 50% advanced NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab in first-line treatment between 2016 and 2020. We compared the clinical characteristics of patients with early progression (refractory) vs others. We performed a comprehensive gene expression profile screening by RNAseq capture on tumor samples.We included 46 patients. Twenty-two patients were refractory to pembrolizumab, mainly women, with poor performance status and lower albumin concentration. RNAseq analysis was performed on 19 samples. Hierarchical clustering allowed the identification of 3 clusters with various proportion of refractory tumors: intermediate (C1: 57%), high (C2: 71%) and low proportion (C3: 40%). Comparative analysis between C2 and C3 allowed the identification of overexpressed (n = 137) and underexpressed (n = 40) genes. Among the genes of interest, C2 exhibits higher activation of pathways associated with stemness phenotype (Hedgehog, Notch and Hippo pathways) and pathways associated with loss of PTEN and JAK2. In C2, genes associated with PD-1, toll-like receptor-9 (TLR-9), major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and interferon-γ pathways were underexpressed.This study gives an overview of activated and downregulated pathways in high PD-L1 NSCLC refractory to pembrolizumab. These tumors showed activation of pathways associated with cancer stem cells, loss of PTEN and JAK2, and inhibition of both priming and effector phases of the immune response.

Supplementary Figure from Comprehensive Genome Profiling in Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Precision Medicine Phase II Randomized SAFIR02-Lung Trial

Supplementary Data from Comprehensive Genome Profiling in Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Precision Medicine Phase II Randomized SAFIR02-Lung Trial

Purpose:The limited knowledge on the molecular profile of patients with BRAF-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress under BRAF-targeted therapies (BRAF-TT) has hampered the development of subsequent therapeutic strategies for these patients. Here, we evaluated the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-targeted sequencing to identify canonical BRAF mutations and genomic alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT, in a large cohort of patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC.Experimental Design:This was a prospective study of 78 patients with advanced BRAF-mutant NSCLC, enrolled in 27 centers across France. Blood samples (n = 208) were collected from BRAF-TT–naïve patients (n = 47), patients nonprogressive under treatment (n = 115), or patients at disease progression (PD) to BRAF-TT (24/46 on BRAF monotherapy and 22/46 on BRAF/MEK combination therapy). ctDNA sequencing was performed using InVisionFirst-Lung. In silico structural modeling was used to predict the potential functional effect of the alterations found in ctDNA.Results:BRAFV600E ctDNA was detected in 74% of BRAF-TT–naïve patients, where alterations in genes related with the MAPK and PI3K pathways, signal transducers, and protein kinases were identified in 29% of the samples. ctDNA positivity at the first radiographic evaluation under treatment, as well as BRAF-mutant ctDNA positivity at PD were associated with poor survival. Potential drivers of resistance to either BRAF-TT monotherapy or BRAF/MEK combination were identified in 46% of patients and these included activating mutations in effectors of the MAPK and PI3K pathways, as well as alterations in U2AF1, IDH1, and CTNNB1.Conclusions:ctDNA sequencing is clinically relevant for the detection of BRAF-activating mutations and the identification of alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT in BRAF-mutant NSCLC.

Purpose:Double inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) using a tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus a monoclonal antibody may be a novel treatment strategy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of afatinib + cetuximab versus afatinib alone in the first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.Patients and Methods:In this phase II, randomized, open-label study, patients with stage III/IV EGFR-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (group A) or afatinib + cetuximab (group A + C). Oral afatinib 40 mg was given once daily; cetuximab 250 mg/m² was administered intravenously on day 15 of cycle 1, then every 2 weeks at 500 mg/m² for 6 months. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) rate at 9 months. Exploratory analysis of EGFR circulating tumor DNA in plasma was performed.Results:Between June 2016 and November 2018, 59 patients were included in group A and 58 in group A + C. The study was ended early after a futility analysis was performed. The percentage of patients without treatment failure at 9 months was similar for both groups (59.3% for group A vs. 64.9% for group A + C), and median TTF was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.5–14.1) and 12.9 (9.2–14.5) months, respectively. Other endpoints, including progression-free survival and overall survival, also showed no improvement with the combination versus afatinib alone. There was a slight numerical increase in grade ≥3 adverse events in group A + C. Allele frequency of the EGFR gene mutation in circulating tumor DNA at baseline was associated with shorter PFS, regardless of the treatment received.Conclusions:These results suggest that addition of cetuximab to afatinib does not warrant further investigation in treatment-naïve advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Purpose:Targeted therapies (TT) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have revolutionized the approach to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment in the era of precision medicine. Their impact as switch maintenance therapy based on molecular characterization is unknown.Patients and Methods:SAFIR02-Lung was an open-label, randomized, phase II trial, involving 33 centers in France. We investigated eight TT (substudy-1) and one ICB (substudy-2), compared with standard-of-care as a maintenance strategy in patients with advanced EGFR, ALK wild-type (wt) NSCLC without progression after first-line chemotherapy, based on high-throughput genome analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).Results:Among the 175 patients randomized in substudy-1, 116 received TT (selumetinib, vistusertib, capivasertib, AZD4547, AZD8931, vandetanib, olaparib, savolitinib) and 59 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 2.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6–2.9] with TT versus 2.7 months (1.6–4.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7–1.36; P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in PFS within any molecular subgroup. In substudy-2, 183 patients were randomized, 121 received durvalumab and 62 standard-of-care. Median PFS was 3.0 months (2.3–4.4) with durvalumab versus 3.0 months (2.0–5.1) with standard-of-care (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.20; P = 0.38). Preplanned subgroup analysis showed an enhanced benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%, (n = 29; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11–0.75) as compared with PD-L1 n = 31; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31–1.60; Pinteraction = 0.036).Conclusions:Molecular profiling can feasibly be implemented to guide treatment choice for the maintenance strategy in EGFR/ALK wt NSCLC; in this study it did not lead to substantial treatment benefits beyond durvalumab for PD-L1 ≥ 1 patients.

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table from Comprehensive Genome Profiling in Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Precision Medicine Phase II Randomized SAFIR02-Lung Trial

BackgroundSurvivors of severe-to-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have functional impairment, radiological sequelae and persistent symptoms requiring prolonged follow-up. This pragmatic study aimed to describe their clinical follow-up and determine their respiratory recovery trajectories, and the factors that could influence them and their health-related quality of life.MethodsAdults hospitalised for severe-to-critical COVID-19 were evaluated at 3 months and up to 12 months post-hospital discharge in this prospective, multicentre, cohort study.ResultsAmong 485 enrolled participants, 293 (60%) were reassessed at 6 months and 163 (35%) at 12 months; 89 (51%) and 47 (27%) of the 173 participants initially managed with standard oxygen were reassessed at 6 and 12 months, respectively. At 3 months, 34%, 70% and 56% of the participants had a restrictive lung defect, impaired diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and significant radiological sequelae, respectively. During extended follow-up, bothDLCOand forced vital capacity percentage predicted increased by means of +4 points at 6 months and +6 points at 12 months. Sex, body mass index, chronic respiratory disease, immunosuppression, pneumonia extent or corticosteroid use during acute COVID-19 and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were associated withDLCOat 3 months, but not its trajectory thereafter. Among 475 (98%) patients with at least one chest computed tomography scan during follow-up, 196 (41%) had significant sequelae on their last images.ConclusionsAlthough pulmonary function and radiological abnormalities improved up to 1 year post-acute COVID-19, high percentages of severe-to-critical disease survivors, including a notable proportion of those managed with standard oxygen, had significant lung sequelae and residual symptoms justifying prolonged follow-up.

Introduction: Compared with docetaxel, the phase-III trial, ULTIMATE, showed a significant improvement of progression-free survival (PFS) with paclitaxel–bevacizumab combination (PB) as second- or third-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). With the increase of immunotherapy treatment in first-line settings, the optimal treatment after first-line failure must be redefined. Methods: This multicentric retrospective study identified all advanced NSCLC patients treated with PB as second-line therapy and beyond. The main efficacy outcomes assessed were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), PFS, and overall survival (OS). The adverse events were reported according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Results: From January 2010 to February 2020, 314 patients in 16 centers received the PB combination. Most patients were male (55%), with a median age of 60 years (19–82), 95% had adenocarcinoma, 27% had a performance status ⩾2, 45% had brain metastases at the time of inclusion. They mostly received the PB combination either in second (20%) or in third-line (39%), and 28% were treated just after ICI failure. ORR and DCR were 40% and 77%, respectively; median PFS and OS were 5.7 [interquartile range (IQR): 3.2–9.6] and 10.8 [IQR: 5.3–19.6] months, respectively. All grade adverse events concerned 82% of patients, including 53% asthenia and 39% neurotoxicity, and 25% of patients continued monotherapy (mostly with bevacizumab) alone due to toxicity. Median PFS for patients treated after ICI failure (ICI+) was significantly superior compared with those not previously treated with ICI (ICI−): 7.0 [IQR: 4.2–11.0] versus 5.2 [IQR: 2.9–8.8] months, p = 0.01, without statistically significant difference for OS between these two groups. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with superior PFS were previous ICI treatment and performance status of 0–1. Only a performance status of 0–1 was associated with superior OS. Conclusion: PB combination as second-line treatment or beyond for advanced non-squamous NSCLC had acceptable toxicity and a clinically relevant efficacy and is an option as salvage treatment for these patients, more particularly after ICI progression.